Am I progressing too slow?

[Gumbolt]

Eakkkk. Have to admit i never loaded the game. The picture said enough for me.

 

[Bayern14]

He's in bad shape though. It might not be un-winnable, but it is going to be very, very hard. He's got WW up the wazzu, but worse than that is the fact that Rome is on the way over with a mild SoD or two. Seafood will likely get pillaged to hell, as he has no navy and really no time to get anything that will hold up to the frigates Rome has. Absolutely everyone else in the world hates him and monty, but betraying monty is out of the question in the near future, because monty has ridiculous SoD's.

Diplo is out, space is unlikely. I guess maybe if he can stay afloat, tech well, and fight really strategically well he'd have a shot at domination or time, assuming he could keep the AI out of space that way.

Yea... I tried, didn't fare too well. I ended the war quickly, but then Caesar decided to declare war. I fought his attacks off without much of a hitch. I'm so far behind in tech though that there is no way out. I did start a new game as the Malinese with the suggestions of gumbolt and I am faring quite well. I'm solidly in second, but the late game is killing me.

 

[Gumbolt]

oooh post the game. Are you on BTS??

 

[Gumbolt]

Just looked at your save game.

Few pointers. Archery as a tech really does not help you much early game. i normally go for mining then bronze working. (This is for copper and chopping) i normally trade for archery once i get alphabet.

Your second city was built in 1640bc. This is really 1000 years too late. On monarch by 1640bc the AI will have 3-4 cities. i will normally have 4 cities by then and be pushing for a wonder with about 5 workers around my lands.

Defensively you are far too weak. One swordsman defending a city will not last long. Your military is half the strongest on the map. look at demographics screen. You should be using longbowmen. 2-3 per city at least on your borders.

To give you an idea. Your military strength is 200 thousand on this game at 1740ad. On my monarch game im up to a million around 1598AD. Thats over about 22 cities. The enemy came at me with a stacks of 14+ units attacking one of my cities. Took me many seige weapons, cavalry and grenadiers to destroy the stack of elephants and grenadiers. i lost nearly 10+ units in destroying 4 cities and the enemies stacks.

Making peace with America seemed to resolve all your unhappiness issues. I normally only attack empires on my borders. Chances are you will capture a city swamped by AI cultural area and one that will join back to its homelands. The upkeep on the city would be high. Theres nothing to stop the Aztecs declaring war on you in the mean time.

Be interested to see the new game.

 

[Light-Giver]

he might as well given up or started a new game already, Think he waited for a few days for some good advice but hes addicted(like me) and i bet started a new game a few hours after posting this.

 

[Gumbolt]

Im sure he is grateful you took time away from your addiction to post here. Now get back to it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just looked at your save game.

Few pointers. Archery as a tech really does not help you much early game. i normally go for mining then bronze working. (This is for copper and chopping) i normally trade for archery once i get alphabet.

Your second city was built in 1640bc. This is really 1000 years too late. On monarch by 1640bc the AI will have 3-4 cities. i will normally have 4 cities by then and be pushing for a wonder with about 5 workers around my lands.

Defensively you are far too weak. One swordsman defending a city will not last long. Your military is half the strongest on the map. look at demographics screen. You should be using longbowmen. 2-3 per city at least on your borders.

To give you an idea. Your military strength is 200 thousand on this game at 1740ad. On my monarch game im up to a million around 1598AD. Thats over about 22 cities. The enemy came at me with a stacks of 14+ units attacking one of my cities. Took me many seige weapons, cavalry and grenadiers to destroy the stack of elephants and grenadiers. i lost nearly 10+ units in destroying 4 cities and the enemies stacks.

Making peace with America seemed to resolve all your unhappiness issues. I normally only attack empires on my borders. Chances are you will capture a city swamped by AI cultural area and one that will join back to its homelands. The upkeep on the city would be high. Theres nothing to stop the Aztecs declaring war on you in the mean time.

Be interested to see the new game.

Couple things:

1. Aztecs (and most AI's) will not attack at friendly. They have no qualms at pleased though. Usually, you want to either keep them at friendly or kill them, because they're super aggressive. The only AI that can attack at friendly is Cathy of Russia (or AI's that decide to attack at pleased before becomming friendly, complex mechanic).

2. Archery early isn't necessarily bad. More than one deity player opens with archers. Archers can be used to fogbust outside your territory, essentially preventing them from doing any damage at all. Archers fortified in hills or forests dominate all early barbs (even other archers). I've had only my capitol at 2000BC, only to have 4 cities (and monument/barracks) with improvements by 1 AD. Making archers while growing toward the happy cap is a legit REXing strategy, although as a beginner he should read up on the different possibilities in the strategies forum and the war academy.

3. What matters more than defenders in a city is total troop count. Ideally, you do want them where you'll be attacked or are attacking from. This is highly situational, and one of the big wartime tactical aspects of the game.

 

[JujuLautre]

The only AI that can attack at friendly is Cathy of Russia (or AI's that decide to attack at pleased before becomming friendly, complex mechanic).

Once again no; NO leader will attack at friendly, they all have a 100% of chance written in the files to abort any attack at friendly.

However, Cathy is the only AI that can be bribed to attack even a leader she's friendly with. Also, she needs to be friendly to the leader who ask for this, so if you're Cathy's only friend, no problem

 

[Hammurbabble]

Just a few notes:

1) As already pointed out, there is nothing wrong with archers. They are BETTER for defending your cities with than axes. (Axes are better attackers, though, and much better for active defense.) You don't have to choose one or the other; you should research both.

2) Re "I didn't found a religion because I didn't want the diplo penalty." Why is it that nobody except me seems to understand that you don't have to take the religion you found as your SR? There absolutely doesn't have to be ANY diplo penalty WHATSOEVER to founding a religion, unless you're dumb about it!

3) Navies are good things.

4) Wars can be fought too long. When you start a war, have a clear idea in mind of what you want to get out of it. In fact, have two or three clear ideas: a best-case, most-likely, and well-it-will-have-to-do scenario. When you start getting serious WW, look at how close you are to achieving any of these objectives. If you can get to the next one in a few turns, do; otherwise, make peace.

5) If you're just getting gunpowder that late in the game, either you need some teching and economic strategies or you were pursuing some other research path. The latter may or may not be viable, depending (but gunpowder is a prerequisite for Rifling, so probably it's not viable if you're expecting or intending war). The former definitely isn't. I'd suggest going to the War Academy on this site and reading articles about cottages, specialists, the various technology "slings" (Oracle, Liberalism) and strategies to win them, etc.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just a few notes:

2) Re "I didn't found a religion because I didn't want the diplo penalty." Why is it that nobody except me seems to understand that you don't have to take the religion you found as your SR? There absolutely doesn't have to be ANY diplo penalty WHATSOEVER to founding a religion, unless you're dumb about it!

No there is a diplomatic penalty for founding a religion, unless you're playing pangaea. Every religion you found is a religion the AI doesn't found. The AI prioritizes religions it founds. On maps where there are multiple AI's on another continent, you want them founding as many religions as possible. Otherwise, they'll all be nice to each other, tech trade, and wind up legions of techs ahead of your continent (more an issue above noble, but it can happen even there). You WANT the ai at war normally, not at peace. Although there's nothing stopping you from capturing shrines!

The other problem with founding religion, with the exception of confuc. and in some cases taoism, taking religious techs will slow you from getting other things, like worker techs, bronze working, early military techs, and strong things like pottery/writing. Same thing with divine right...right now it isn't a very helpful tech compared to other ways up the tree.

Now of course, there's the alternate strategy, which is to go religion heavy. If you do this, you're going for shrine money to pay the bills, and diplomatic manipulations based on the religions you spread. In this case, theology becomes a very powerful tech, as you can go for an AP victory or use it to abuse other civs.

Usually budhism and hinduism are crappy to go for on higher levels unless you open with a strong commerce plot and mysticism. However, the others are somewhat more viable...especially theology with a GP bulb (and it's not much of a reach that you'll get one with the oracle, what free tech you take with it depends on your strategy, but it's hard to imagine a RELIGIOUS path that doesn't take advantage of the oracle, unless you're taking advantage of captured shrines).

 

[Gumbolt]

Couple things:

1. Aztecs (and most AI's) will not attack at friendly. They have no qualms at pleased though. Usually, you want to either keep them at friendly or kill them, because they're super aggressive. The only AI that can attack at friendly is Cathy of Russia (or AI's that decide to attack at pleased before becomming friendly, complex mechanic).

2. Archery early isn't necessarily bad. More than one deity player opens with archers. Archers can be used to fogbust outside your territory, essentially preventing them from doing any damage at all. Archers fortified in hills or forests dominate all early barbs (even other archers). I've had only my capitol at 2000BC, only to have 4 cities (and monument/barracks) with improvements by 1 AD. Making archers while growing toward the happy cap is a legit REXing strategy, although as a beginner he should read up on the different possibilities in the strategies forum and the war academy.

3. What matters more than defenders in a city is total troop count. Ideally, you do want them where you'll be attacked or are attacking from. This is highly situational, and one of the big wartime tactical aspects of the game.

1. Fair enough the Aztecs are happy on this game. If i was playing the Aztecs though i would of carved up half his empire with 10-15 units. While he was off chasing the Americans.

2. There are more barbs on diety. He is playing the standard version of civ 4 and i dont think this had fog. Although strong fog busters are useful. I have always coped with warriors or axemen on monarchy. Although I am on my first proper game of BTS.

3. nothing. )

 

[Kesshi]

Once again no; NO leader will attack at friendly, they all have a 100% of chance written in the files to abort any attack at friendly.

However, Cathy is the only AI that can be bribed to attack even a leader she's friendly with. Also, she needs to be friendly to the leader who ask for this, so if you're Cathy's only friend, no problem

JujuLautre,

You are almost 100% correct. There is one other exception to the whole "leaders won't attack you at friendly." It's once they've already decided to attack you.

The way the AI works in this situation, is they decide who to attack, THEN move its armies into place (usually takes about 5-10 turns), THEN declare war. If the AI is only Pleased with you when it decides to attack you, and in the interim you end up making them Friendly, they will still attack you.

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

JujuLautre,

You are almost 100% correct. There is one other exception to the whole "leaders won't attack you at friendly." It's once they've already decided to attack you.

The way the AI works in this situation, is they decide who to attack, THEN move its armies into place (usually takes about 5-10 turns), THEN declare war. If the AI is only Pleased with you when it decides to attack you, and in the interim you end up making them Friendly, they will still attack you.

There is another exception. If you have a vassal the AI averages and rounds down the relationship between you and your vassal. So if they're friendly with you, but cautious with your vassal, it's as if they were pleased, and they can still attack.

 

[Hammurbabble]

No there is a diplomatic penalty for founding a religion, unless you're playing pangaea. Every religion you found is a religion the AI doesn't found.

I don't find that this makes any practical difference, though. And I never play on pangaea, these days it's always Hemispheres. There doesn't need to be six religions on the other continent, two or three will suffice just fine, and your one founded religion on this continent isn't going to make a lot of difference in the odds of there being two or three viable religions on the other continent to keep people quarreling.

Also, how many religions are founded on a continent has less bearing on how religiously conflicted that continent becomes, than the random pattern of how the religions spread. I've played games in which four or five religions were founded on my continent (mostly by AIs) but everyone had the same SR. A lot of times I've seen the AI found a religion and yet stick with a different one than they founded.

Also, religious conflicts on the other continent aren't an unmixed blessing. You get less tech trading that way, but you also increase the chance of some AI getting too big and powerful. All in all, it's such a complete crap shoot that a very, very tiny factor such as whether or not you found a religion is almost completely meaningless. Certainly it isn't worth sacrificing the shrine income for, or risking not having a religion at all in the early game when you seriously need one for happiness.

Usually budhism and hinduism are crappy to go for on higher levels unless you open with a strong commerce plot and mysticism. However, the others are somewhat more viable

Strong commerce plot isn't necessary. Mysticism almost is, though. You have about an 80% chance to get Hinduism on a normal map without extra civs on any difficulty from Prince through Deity, if you start with Mysticism. But I usually go for Confucianism via the Oracle instead. It's more sure.

 

[Kesshi]

There is another exception. If you have a vassal the AI averages and rounds down the relationship between you and your vassal. So if they're friendly with you, but cautious with your vassal, it's as if they were pleased, and they can still attack.

BalbanesBeoulve,

I never knew that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm am Emperor+ player and I still learn something new all the time from these forums.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

BalbanesBeoulve,

I never knew that. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm am Emperor+ player and I still learn something new all the time from these forums.

Usually if you're holding onto vassals, your power rating makes you seem like an iffy target to the AI. They usually prefer being stronger than their DoW opponent .

 

[lovetramy]

sorry but i think you're just 1 milenium late ...