Close but still losing King

[Scarpa]

Looking for some general advice on the step from Prince to King. I've read a few of the recent threads on this topic, and honestly I don't quite understand why I'm losing.

I've attached a save of my most recent game which is not lost yet, but doesn't seem winnable.

I feel like I suck at expanding. Maintaining a tech lead is relatively easy, and growing my population is the only thing I (think) I am doing right. But I'm no good at running a wide empire and after the first wave of 1 or 2 cities I never seem to hit the pace required to keep up with the big civs late game. Maybe I'm too picky about where to put cities, or get too attached to policies, I just never feel like it's the 'right' time for cities after my first few.

In the attached game I was going for tech victory but ended up getting city spammed by Askia to the north and Alex was just Alex to my south. India eventually decided I was a warmonger when I took Kathmandu (who was already at war with me) during a war with Alex and periodically waged war on me as well. I picked the fight with Askia which was probably stupid and has been a big drain on my units and production for awhile.

thanks for any advice

 

[bhavv]

Your cities look severely underdeveloped for 1810 AD. You hardly have enough social polices so late into the game, cultural output is weak, and your BPT are very low if you're trying for a science win.

I dont get why you are at war with all the city states, and why you havnt even built a 4 turn workshop yet in your capital, or 6 turn opera houses in the rest.

If an AI declares war on you and they are allied to a city state, you dont have to capture that city state, you can normally click on them and make peace, or even simply ignore them.

How were you actually trying to win this game?

 

[The Pilgrim]

You don't need a great city spots for wide empire. They should be decent.

In current game you have two major problems.

Your core cities are overgrown and work some useless tiles while sucking out all happiness potential. When going wide you need to keep relatively low population and grow into the most essential tiles only. Tight micromanaging required. Check out this thread, if you haven't yet.

The second problem is a very low cash flow. Money = power. You have some long roads left from the conquest, you should removing them right away. In addition road network isn't optimized. Minimizing number of road improvements is just as important as a previous one. Connect each city only once, without loops.
Sell strategic resources the same way you sell luxes.
Fewer growth buildings would also lower the maintenance cost and free up the building queue for some more units. It's very easy to get stuck in infinite chasing after your own tail. New tech comes in and you want to build the newest and the most expensive building, just because your core cities can handle them. New tech - new buildings, new wonders etc. You build one building after another, one wonder after another. All of them are great but playing like this you tend to neglect military completely. Right now it's not a big deal. You can defend yourself, buy couple of artilleries asap and you'll be fine. But having army too weak 'invites' aggression. Allying city states between you and your neighbors can be also helpful, since they serve as a buffer and wear them down. Consider doing this next time.

Also why did you annex everything? Have you ran into unhappiness difficulties? It wouldn't be an issue if core cities were smaller. You could also sell excessive luxuries instead of exchanging them with new ones.
Cities with low production better be prioritized as gold farms, meaning trade posts everywhere. You could leave them as puppets and avoid increasing social policies costs and courthouses maintenance. Currently they build stuff just for the sake of it. Not really contributing. Destroyer? Seriously? Why?

BTW, what did you bulb with Great Scientists? If you planned to win by science you should have 6-7 or even 8 guys sitting around waiting. With Scientific Revolution policy and the Oxford you've already built (why?) you could jump from this point to the future in one turn and begin working on spaceship itself. Don't use great scientists in spacerace game immediately, unless you need them badly for military tech or getting into Renaissance to unlock Rationalism.

All that said, this game is totally winnable, IMO. Your have a tech lead and overall strong cities. Land is slightly undeveloped, but it's fixable and not that crucial so late in the game. You will have to tech a lot of expensive techs by yourself, but with filling all scientists slots you can probably generate another couple of GS's. Keep them and Scientific Revolution to the end to bulb the most expensive techs in the bunch.
If Askia doesn't agree to make peace maybe you'll have to take detour and build some nukes. Based on pathetic outdated units they brought, I cannot see either Alex or Gandhi as a problem.

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[Scarpa]

Thanks for the feedback! I think a big problem I have is growth for growth's sake, and I hadn't understood the concepts of depleting happiness potential and simply not having enough (good) tiles/specialist slots to justify the pop.

I guess I was just stuck on the simplistic idea that Population = Science.

I dont get why you are at war with all the city states, and why you havnt even built a 4 turn workshop yet in your capital, or 6 turn opera houses in the rest.

If an AI declares war on you and they are allied to a city state, you dont have to capture that city state, you can normally click on them and make peace, or even simply ignore them.

How were you actually trying to win this game?

The city state thing was kind of dumb. Kathmandu was an ally of Greece and went to war with me for that reason. Since I 'coveted their lands' I figured I'd just take it. It ended up triggering war with all the other states eventually somehow. Not sure why but the next time Alex declared war every single city state (even non-allies of his) did at the same time. As for no opera houses I didn't think I needed them for science. Same with workshops.

Also why did you annex everything? Have you ran into unhappiness difficulties? It wouldn't be an issue if core cities were smaller. You could also sell excessive luxuries instead of exchanging them with new ones.
Cities with low production better be prioritized as gold farms, meaning trade posts everywhere. You could leave them as puppets and avoid increasing social policies costs and courthouses maintenance. Currently they build stuff just for the sake of it. Not really contributing. Destroyer? Seriously? Why?

BTW, what did you bulb with Great Scientists? If you planned to win by science you should have 6-7 or even 8 guys sitting around waiting. With Scientific Revolution policy and the Oxford you've already built (why?) you could jump from this point to the future in one turn and begin working on spaceship itself. Don't use great scientists in spacerace game immediately, unless you need them badly for military tech or getting into Renaissance to unlock Rationalism.

I annexed because it seemed a good way to recover happiness and at one point I wanted more cities and had a cash surplus so annexed and bought courthouses in a couple cities.

The Destroyer... I just don't know. I think I was lost by then and just building cool things. Oh also to prevent Alex from floating past those mountains.

I think I used the GS's to bulb techs that took me into the next era, mostly. In one case I did bulb some techs across the bottom because of my endless wars. It hadn't occurred to me to save *that many* GS's. That's an interesting idea...

Overall I am better at tall empires. I like building things, and am able to micro one or two cities without issue. In this game I decided on a wide empire from the beginning, figured science would be easiest, and then quickly got lost.

I'm not sure if I'll return to this game. I want to get better at a wide empire style and would like to start fresh and pay more attention to growth. My biggest issue with wide empires though is what do you do with those cities that just can't build anything in less than 40 turns? I get that you can cap a city at 4 or 5 pop and have it 'self sustaining' with policies/happiness buildings, but even getting the collosseum takes forever!

 

[chazzycat]

Population does equal science, but ignoring other facets of the game will hurt you in the long run. For instance building a workshop will speed up your tech buildings and wonders that may boost science. Building opera houses/Hermitage will increase your culture a good deal. If you spend that culture on rationalism policies, it can boost science greatly.

 

[bhavv]

Overall I am better at tall empires. I like building things, and am able to micro one or two cities without issue. In this game I decided on a wide empire from the beginning, figured science would be easiest, and then quickly got lost.

Your empire wasnt really that wide tbh, it was only 5 cities plus a couple that you captured?

I made a video of my current 5 city tall empire / builder game on king difficulty atm, I was only playing again to try out Korea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a52oS65pqxI

This strategy can be replicated with any Civ, but you would need to take Rationalism + Secularism instead of Mercantalism. I was relying on Koreas UA to neglect Rationalism so I could get the cheaper rush buys and then fill all of Freedom first.

In your game your economy was very weak, not only due to the two occupied cities, but also the lack of economic policies such as Monarchy, Free Speech and Commerce.

You also have a lot of riverside hills around your capital that were mined instead of farmed (plus an unimproved one). Farmed riverside hills are your single best tiles to work throughout the game for both growth + production. All the forests south of the capital should have been chopped into your early settlers or even wonders (you could have easily built Great Library, Oracle and Hanging Gardens in that capital at the least in the BCs).

 

[Scarpa]

Your empire wasnt really that wide tbh, it was only 5 cities plus a couple that you captured?

You also have a lot of riverside hills around your capital that were mined instead of farmed (plus an unimproved one). Farmed riverside hills are your single best tiles to work throughout the game for both growth + production. All the forests south of the capital should have been chopped into your early settlers or even wonders (you could have easily built Great Library, Oracle and Hanging Gardens in that capital at the least in the BCs).

Oh yeah I don't feel I actually pulled off a wide empire, I was just attempting to. I originally envisioned about 8 cities spanning the gap between the mountains to the north and south. What actually happened was me bumbling around forever then realizing I was totally lost!

As I said, I'm starting over and rather than focusing on a victory condition trying to understand the intricacies of population/production/happiness. Martin Alivo has some good recent posts that clearly outline the tradeoffs, I just need much more time and/or a faster brain to absorb it all. Maybe I should let my 5yo teach me, I bet he'd already be better than me and he can't read yet.

 

[trueblue]

i loaded this game and i dont know here to start. sorry.

forget the rest. i just cant undertand your roads. thats a gold a turn, mate. one gold per turn for every tile of road, every turn. and most of those roads are railroads. and some cities dont even have workshops. yet there are those railroads.

why is that city running a merchant? why are they annexed? why do some cities not have that wee box checked, the one that means you pick the specialists?

i dunno.

Yet.

The biggest crime is having your logistics artillery off the beaten track. its not on a road, or a railroad. thats a turn wasted.

Its King. That one unit would win you the game.

 

[The Pilgrim]

You also have a lot of riverside hills around your capital that were mined instead of farmed (plus an unimproved one). Farmed riverside hills are your single best tiles to work throughout the game for both growth + production.

He has more than enough food in the core cities, IIRC, capital included. The couple of farmed riverside hills better be mined since production isn't that great.
And @Scarpa: you do need production buildings for science win. You need them all. Workshops, factories, windmills, watermills, ironworks etc. - the whole bunch. Spaceship parts require lots of hammers. You should never neglect production regardless of a victory type.

Oh yeah I don't feel I actually pulled off a wide empire, I was just attempting to. I originally envisioned about 8 cities spanning the gap between the mountains to the north and south.

That's the main thing you should focus on next time. Decide whether you're going tall or wide from the start. What you want to avoid is having a so so cities that are not big enough to be considered tall and there are too few of them to consider it to be a wide approach. Like in this game.

If you want to go tall - 3 or maybe 4 really good cities in the best possible locations should be your goal. May be more, but usually there are not enough good city sites to justify that. You let them grow as much as happiness allows you to. Riverside farms, aqueducts, hospitals, Hanging Gardens etc. Given it was a tall empire, you've done everything right.
For going wide you'll be trying to minimize the road connection costs, so any descent spot within 4 tiles away from another city is acceptable. Obviously, firstly you grab the better ones and after that you fill the gaps. You still need the capital and second or second+third cities to be slightly larger than all the rest, they'll be responsible for wonders, units and later buildings during the whole game, but not overgrown. Later wave cities will mainly provide gold and science. All they need is universities with scientists slots filled (it will take them awhile to get there, but they eventually will) and culture buildings - monuments and temples if you've chosen Piety. They should work the most essential tiles only, trading posts here and there and can be even stagnated once they reach the goals listed above. If you manage to deal with unhappiness without Piety, you can go for Rationalism and pick science bonuses for university and trading posts. The latter is better, of course, science will fly through the roof, but unlikely. Unhappiness will probably limit you. Also keep in mind, that wide approach might provoke some hostility. AI doesn't like expansionists, so be prepared.

I just need much more time and/or a faster brain to absorb it all. Maybe I should let my 5yo teach me, I bet he'd already be better than me and he can't read yet.

Nah. More practice. You'll get there. Seriously, things aren't as bad as you think. You're doing alright.

 

[Scarpa]

Well I gave it a shot but I think the game was beyond my abilities.

I have realized that I love to *start* games, but get distracted/bored midgame unless I'm clearly kicking ass.

Anyway, I started a few games to get the hang of the basic mechanics and then picked this game back up. Thought I had a chance to get to B17s/Rocket Artillery before being overrun but all the City States tipped the balance. Alex was no threat but the CS he was allied with brought infantry. Askia brought along another CS with infantry as well and I was just on my heels the entire time.

I thought I was being clever by selling the CS I was occupying (and about to lose) to Napoleon (who hated Askia already) to cover my retreat but ultimately too little, too late. I lost my oil and Askia brought fighters in to pick at my artillery that were formerly safe behind my lines.

Thanks all for the advice. Going to keep at it, I'll get used to things well enough to beat King eventually.

 

[bhavv]

Opening strategy is very important on king difficulty and above, I find that what gives me the most help is getting the early turns right more than the later ones, as they set you off to a great start if you can build a solid foundation.

For social policies, I always open with Tradition > Liberty > Citizenship > Collective Rule for the culture and free worker + settler.

During this time my capital works food tiles and builds a Monument > Granary > Archer > Archer > Archer.

Usually Collective rule is taken just a few turns after the second archer, and when the capital has grown to size 4-5 at which point I swap over to train two settlers before completing the third archer. This gives me a fast 4 city rex by 2000 BC with an archer garrison for the 2nd-4th cities, which makes them more than capable of defending themselves against early AI rushes (just move another archer to any city that is under attack, use them well and defensively and you should be immune to AI attacks on king difficulty).

After thats all done my capital starts wonder spamming while cities 2-4 build Monument > Granary > Library > Colosseum > Market > Temple (or university) > Workshop.

For workers I steal one from a city state, and make sure that I leave a barb encampment alive somewhere near a city state to capture me a third. If I dont find more than those three then I steal one from any AI (hopefully a warmonger that will get over it very quickly like monty or alexander). 4 workers + 4 cities as quickly as possible makes the rest of the game easy peasy on King difficulty.

You can decide after this point if you want to stick to your 4 cities and grow a tall empire, or go wide instead, but the initial 4 city rex with Collective Rule is very powerful.

 

[Scarpa]

I finally beat a King game, thanks for all the feedback on this thread.

Went continents and drew Siam. Started on a continent with Songhai, Alex, Bismark. Went early 3-city "beeline" (slow by standards here, I'm sure) to Education then took Askia's second city. Paid Alex off to war with Bismark during my early-Medieval weak period and eventually Alex took Gao. Bulbed from mid-Renaissance to Replaceable Parts (before Rifles! ) and went on an expansion spree eventually taking over most of the continent and beating the runaway Arabian civ to Science Victory around turn 350.