beginner woes

[sutton]

I am new to Civ 3 (actually new to all Civ games) and am struggling. I know the game is not designed to be easy, but I keep finding myself fighting for second to last place come 1500AD or so, even in games that seem to be off to a great start. I am ahead in science, building wisely, mining, irrigating, keeping folks reasonably happy, and getting a couple wonders under my belt.
The only thing I don't do is go to early war, or do a whole lot of wheeling and dealing. I always seem to be off to a great start, and then watch my lead dwindle with each passing year.

When I feel I have made some sigfificant advance, say iron processed weapons, a charge into war, and after some success things start to fall apart!

I am having a lot of fun with this, and am glad it isn't easy, but my marriage and job will not withstand the time I would love to dedicate to solving this riddle.

I am playing I think at warlord?

Thanks- I look forward to finding out if I am being dense about something.

 

[Rich]

When i first began i had the same probs. I build up a decent empire and kinda stop. The important thing in the Civs game is to keep expanding. Continual production of settlers is essential for world domination. Also examin the wonders you build n think hard about city sites. BTW what civ you playin with?

 

[eyrei]

Actually, you should not pay too much attention to your score, which is the way you seem to be ranking yourself. Score is based too much on territory. If you are truly #1 in science, then you are winning by my measure. You can still win a spaceship, diplomatic or one-city culture victory with a small empire. Or you could keep expanding, as was mentioned. It all depends on your preferred playing style.

 

[sail lbi]

Originally posted by eyrei
Actually, you should not pay too much attention to your score, which is the way you seem to be ranking yourself. Score is based too much on territory. If you are truly #1 in science, then you are winning by my measure. You can still win a spaceship, diplomatic or one-city culture victory with a small empire. Or you could keep expanding, as was mentioned. It all depends on your preferred playing style.

So if i understand you, based on your situation at say about 1000AD, you decide which type of victory to go for?

Im tired of being smacked around my the damn computer so any advice would help

 

[sutton]

Thanks.

Yes, I am using the score, and I have wondered about its accuracy.

I started with Rome (of course), and have settled on Iriquoi (sp?), Japan.

I have tried to concentrate wonder building in capital city and nearby efficient cities. I build a granary in the capital, but always go for the pyramid. I do not build a barrack as I also always go for art of war.

Is there any advantage from trading with other civs (it seems that whatever benefit you get, so goes your opponent)?

Is there any need to build a primative navy?

Is it bad for your rep when you attack unprovoked?

I'll continue to play this game out that seems to be going well except my score is lousy. I am Japan, and seem in the lead with technology. I think my military could stand some improvement- I tried an assault on a neighbor and didn't get very far.

Thanks

 

[eyrei]

You really just have to decide early on if you want to go for a diplomatic victory, because it requires you keep your reputation stellar the entire game. One city culture victory is hard on the higher levels, because you have to have several Great Wonders in the city. As long as you keep up in tech, and have about 10 highly productive cities, you can acheive a space race victory. The size of your empire only matters for histographic and domination victories, and indirectly for conquest and cultural wins.

The key to winning with a small empire, is managing corruption and waste very efficiently (I usually get it to around 7% across the board), and maintaining a sizeable, well trained and state of the art military. It is also a good idea to maintain ROP agreements with most of the other civs, to improve relations for a diplo win, and to keep them from ganging up on you.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by sutton
Thanks.

Yes, I am using the score, and I have wondered about its accuracy.

I started with Rome (of course), and have settled on Iriquoi (sp?), Japan.

I have tried to concentrate wonder building in capital city and nearby efficient cities. I build a granary in the capital, but always go for the pyramid. I do not build a barrack as I also always go for art of war.

Is there any advantage from trading with other civs (it seems that whatever benefit you get, so goes your opponent)?

Is there any need to build a primative navy?

Is it bad for your rep when you attack unprovoked?

I'll continue to play this game out that seems to be going well except my score is lousy. I am Japan, and seem in the lead with technology. I think my military could stand some improvement- I tried an assault on a neighbor and didn't get very far.

Thanks

Score is not a good measure of how well you are doing, unless you are trying to conquer the world.

You must trade with the other civs to remain competetive. Try using gold to buy techs from them, while keeping yours secret.

I do not bother building a navy until destroyers, unless my coast is being pounded. I then build ironclads. Avoid frigates because they go obsolete very quickly and cannot be upgraded.

It is definately bad for your rep if you attack unprovoked. If you want a war with someone, wait until they place a unit in your territory, and tell them to get out. The AI hates this more than anything, and will declare war after about the third time. Also, planting spies unsuccessfully is a great way to get someone to attack you.

 

[Exile_Ian]

Sutton:

I agree with some of the people who are saying that your score is not the most relevent measure of how well you are doing - but its not to be ignored. For one thing, I believe the AI opponents base their relationship on you with regard to similar scoring factors. For instance you're far more likely to be considered weak and therefore a target for exploitation if your score is low. You're faced with constantly needing to appease the demands of the stronger civs or risk war that you may not be prepared for.

It depends a lot on your style of playing too. I tend to do the opposite of what you seem to do. In the early stages, I go for maximum territory - trying to limit my city populations to < 6 (which gives the advantage that City Walls continue to work, which they don't above 6) - and churning out settlers, workers, and defensive units to claim as much ground as I can before the AI does. Only when I've done that, will I start working on Wonders (no point if you don't have a big city to build one in).

I usually play on large maps at Warlord or Regent level and most often play as the Americans. I'm usually ahead on score for most of the game, and tend to stay there.

I also make a point of not provoking the other stronger Civs but I avoid alliances, protection pacts and rights of passage as far as possible. I only usually go to war to protect the territory I'm trying to grab, and only then if the 'intruder' is fairly weak.

I trade advances to anyone I can - on the basis that if I don't, the AI will. Equally, if I get a rare advance from the AI, I'll trade it immediately with anyone I can - and if they offer me a pittance, I'll actually 'give' them the advance instead (bribes just make life a little easier and it doesn't cost me anything).

I tend to focus on certain strategic advance in planning my Science route. My priorities (as a guide) are Iron Working, Writing (to get embassies), Gunpowder, Nationalism - and I tend to stick to the shortest path to those.

There's obviously a lot of other factors to consider as well, such as scarcity of resources. But beware trying to be too greedy when claiming territory. It may seem a smart thing to do to try and secure all the sources of Iron on your continent - but doing so just makes you a bigger target for the other Civs.

One last thing. If you're a beginner, don't feel guilty about abandoning 'loser' games. I do that frequently - start a game on a plan - the plan doesn't really come together and I start thinking "I wish I'd done that differently" - well that's just what I do. Either reload the game from a save or (more likely) start a new game and try a different approach. I think most game's results are pretty clear by around the 1000AD mark - you know whether you're going to win or not by then, so why waste time playing out to a dismal end?

Sorry if that's a bit rambling - but hopefully it helps a little.

 

[Allemand]

I love those Americans. Industrious workers and scouts make a great combination.

The only "easy" level is Chieftan. From Warlord on up, the AI will give you trouble. The good thing is the incremental difficulty increases are not very large until you go to Deity. So don't expect an easy game.

 

[sutton]

To all,

Thanks for the help. I am getting a better sense of some of the Civ fundamentals I must understand before I perform better. I will not go into detail with my beginner mistakes, but let it be know I have marched a leader into battle with results that made we wonder if that was what a leader is used for ( I now know ).

Probably the most useful tip is that anything over the introductory level is not easy. Which is fine by me, but the change in difficulty moving up a level surprised me.