Condensed tips for beginners?

[Dragonxander PR]

Map sizes - are they related to difficulty? What I mean is, is playing a huge map for more advance players or is it more difficult? Is a smaller map more difficult because more Civs are crammed into a smaller space? Why would a player play a huge map as opposed to a smaller or standard size map?

In some way the do add up some difficulty. Consider the following:

- If going for a culture win, you'll need more infrastructure in your empire in order to get some major culture boosters. For instance, cathedrals give a +50% bonus, but they require several temples. In a tiny map, they only need 2; in a standard map they need 3, & in a huge one they need 4. This also applies to national wonders requiring specific buildings.

- You'll have more rivals. This means diplomacy gets trickier & overall harder; more trading overall (therefore more advanced AIs),

- More land to deal with: more land to conquer (if going for domination or conquest), more empty lands for barb spawning, larger desert, jungle, tundra & ice stretches against desirable city spots...

-Exploring will take longer (crucial for the circumnavigation bonus & for early game diplomacy).

- Military forces are at a higher risk of reaching obsolescence before they should (solvable with slower game speeds).

- More RAM & processing power needed to handle the map (will matter when using less powerful computers).

- Due to the map size, resource variety within your lands will be more limited (therefore making trading more important, which also has to be balanced with diplomacy).

- Races for unique stuff (i.e. world wonders, tech bonuses, religions) will be harder to attain, since there are more civs competing for them.


On the other hand, some positives of huge maps are:

- Peaceful REXing will be more doable (if not cramming the map with civs).

- You'll have a safer situation (if playing on a map full of smaller landmasses).

- When growing big, you'll get a much larger edge against the remaining opponents.

- Map trading becomes more profitable.


That's what I can think of by the moment.

 

[yanner39]

I was wondering what the more experience players think is a good tech rate. I don't know if there is a good answer or "it depends" but I was wondering what was a suitable tech rate at say, year 1918AD or 600AD, etc...Maybe a formula or something. I know it doesn't matter what the sliders says, only the beakers per turn. But for example, in 1918AD, at 80% research, I was generating over +900 research points per turn. Is that good? Please keep in mind that I am playing at Warlord in my current game.

I just wasn't sure if I should be producing higher or am I in for a rude awakening once I graduate to noble.

 

[Ghpstage]

I was wondering what the more experience players think is a good tech rate. I don't know if there is a good answer or "it depends" but I was wondering what was a suitable tech rate at say, year 1918AD or 600AD, etc...Maybe a formula or something. I know it doesn't matter what the sliders says, only the beakers per turn. But for example, in 1918AD, at 80% research, I was generating over +900 research points per turn. Is that good? Please keep in mind that I am playing at Warlord in my current game.

I just wasn't sure if I should be producing higher or am I in for a rude awakening once I graduate to noble.

It is one of those 'depends' answers i'm afraid. All that really matters is where you are compared to the AI on techs, as things like bulbing, trades, stealing and extortion aren't shown in your beaker rate. How does your tech rate hold up to the AIs?
Are you plodding along equally? (in which case you will likely struggle with noble)
or are you nuking Longbows/Musketmen? (Always fun! )

 

[yanner39]

It is one of those 'depends' answers i'm afraid. All that really matters is where you are compared to the AI on techs, as things like bulbing, trades, stealing and extortion aren't shown in your beaker rate. How does your tech rate hold up to the AIs?
Are you plodding along equally? (in which case you will likely struggle with noble)
or are you nuking Longbows/Musketmen? (Always fun! )

Actually I am quite ahead in the game. The year is 1920AD and Shaka and I are in our second war (he's a sucker for punishment I guess) and he's sending waves and waves of Frigates, Galleon and Ships of the Line versus my destroyers, battleships, Fighters, etc...When he does manage to make land, I destroy his horses warriors or whatever they are called and cats with my tanks and marines. Yes, it is extremely fun. He tried a sneak attack by sending his ships to a city that was lightly defended. I sent my ships quickly over.

I am getting alot more familiar with the diplomacy screens, but the tech screen is somewhat confusing. I understand the column "What they want" (all the AI leaders have something there). However, only one leader has techs in the "What they can research" column. I could determine where that one leader was in the tech tree but wasn't sure where the others were because I didn't know what they could research.

Any ideas?

 

[PieceOfMind]

Actually I am quite ahead in the game. The year is 1920AD and Shaka and I are in our second war (he's a sucker for punishment I guess) and he's sending waves and waves of Frigates, Galleon and Ships of the Line versus my destroyers, battleships, Fighters, etc...When he does manage to make land, I destroy his horses warriors or whatever they are called and cats with my tanks and marines. Yes, it is extremely fun. He tried a sneak attack by sending his ships to a city that was lightly defended. I sent my ships quickly over.

I am getting alot more familiar with the diplomacy screens, but the tech screen is somewhat confusing. I understand the column "What they want" (all the AI leaders have something there). However, only one leader has techs in the "What they can research" column. I could determine where that one leader was in the tech tree but wasn't sure where the others were because I didn't know what they could research.

Any ideas?

FYI, I think the techs that appear under "What they can research" are ones they can research which you don't yet know either. Otherwise, if you do know the tech, it would show up under "techs they want".

 

[yanner39]

FYI, I think the techs that appear under "What they can research" are ones they can research which you don't yet know either. Otherwise, if you do know the tech, it would show up under "techs they want".

Ahh...That makes perfect sense. Both warmongers in my current game at behind in the tech race (Shaka and Montezuma). Elizabeth and I are close, which is why she has techs I don't have.

 

[yanner39]

I just read the detailed article on the early rush by Sisiutil. It was very informative as were the other articles.

I was just left with the following question: How early is early? Is there a guideline of some sorts? I mean, it was mentioned in the article that waiting for Iron working and swordsmen maybe too late. Yet I may need to build 8 Axemen to rush. And then, if I don't have copper in my BFC (most likely) then I need to build a settler and a worker, etc...

It seems like alot of things have to happen in order to even consider an early rush. Am I correct?

How does one know if the rush ain't going to happen? Maybe a date or when the target Civ is at a specific place in the tech tree or if my recon reveals that the capital is just too heavily guarded?

 

[Irennicus]

Hey guys, I'm new to the forums. This thread is pretty massive but I've read a considerable amount of it and I want to thank you guys for putting in the time.

 

[Sisiutil]

I just read the detailed article on the early rush by Sisiutil. It was very informative as were the other articles.

I was just left with the following question: How early is early? Is there a guideline of some sorts? I mean, it was mentioned in the article that waiting for Iron working and swordsmen maybe too late. Yet I may need to build 8 Axemen to rush. And then, if I don't have copper in my BFC (most likely) then I need to build a settler and a worker, etc...

It seems like alot of things have to happen in order to even consider an early rush. Am I correct?

How does one know if the rush ain't going to happen? Maybe a date or when the target Civ is at a specific place in the tech tree or if my recon reveals that the capital is just too heavily guarded?

Well, if you read my article again, I do have a sidebar in there about when NOT to rush, such as when your only neighbour is Sitting Bull, who has the Protective trait (ouch), a resourceless UU that counters melee units like Axes and Swords (double ouch), and a UB that enhances his already-enhanced Protective Archers (TRIPLE ouch). And the bugger probably built all his cities on hills, to boot (AAAH!! The pain! The pain! Someone make it stop!). Mind you, I have rushed him successfully with Praetorians when playing as Caesar, so anything's possible.

Waiting for Iron Working and Swordsmen is a judgement call, though you may not have any choice if you don't have any copper around; as I recall, starting with Warlords, the map scripts were nudged to make copper more rare and thereby nerf the early rush a bit. If you're lucky enough to have gems, silver, or gold in your capital's BFC, however, you can probably get IW relatively quickly, as working that resource will boost your research considerably, even more so if you're a leader with the Financial trait. And as you may have gathered from the previous paragraph, a Praet rush when playing as Rome is simply a must, Protective leader or no.

When to call it off? I usually only do so if my intended target suddenly has a plethora of Axemen himself, which are the best counter to the vast majority of early rush units. I've noticed that more recent versions of the AI like Axemen a lot more, again, probably as a counter to the early rush. You could always bring Chariots along, but the AI likes Spearmen, too, and if they have Axes, they'll have Spears.

 

[yanner39]

Well, if you read my article again, I do have a sidebar in there about when NOT to rush, such as when your only neighbour is Sitting Bull, who has the Protective trait (ouch), a resourceless UU that counters melee units like Axes and Swords (double ouch), and a UB that enhances his already-enhanced Protective Archers (TRIPLE ouch). And the bugger probably built all his cities on hills, to boot (AAAH!! The pain! The pain! Someone make it stop!). Mind you, I have rushed him successfully with Praetorians when playing as Caesar, so anything's possible.

Waiting for Iron Working and Swordsmen is a judgement call, though you may not have any choice if you don't have any copper around; as I recall, starting with Warlords, the map scripts were nudged to make copper more rare and thereby nerf the early rush a bit. If you're lucky enough to have gems, silver, or gold in your capital's BFC, however, you can probably get IW relatively quickly, as working that resource will boost your research considerably, even more so if you're a leader with the Financial trait. And as you may have gathered from the previous paragraph, a Praet rush when playing as Rome is simply a must, Protective leader or no.

When to call it off? I usually only do so if my intended target suddenly has a plethora of Axemen himself, which are the best counter to the vast majority of early rush units. I've noticed that more recent versions of the AI like Axemen a lot more, again, probably as a counter to the early rush. You could always bring Chariots along, but the AI likes Spearmen, too, and if they have Axes, they'll have Spears.

Thank you. Actually, the sidebar was quite clear, as was the rest of the article. Where I got hung up on was from a time perspective. But I understand that the early rush is about exploiting a AI Civ's early weakness. It's funny, in a game I started just to practice an early rush, I played on Settler and quickly built 6 or 7 warriors. I figured I could overwhelm the opponent quickly. That wasn't going to happen. The defender was one warrior and an archer.

 

[Sisiutil]

Thank you. Actually, the sidebar was quite clear, as was the rest of the article. Where I got hung up on was from a time perspective. But I understand that the early rush is about exploiting a AI Civ's early weakness. It's funny, in a game I started just to practice an early rush, I played on Settler and quickly built 6 or 7 warriors. I figured I could overwhelm the opponent quickly. That wasn't going to happen. The defender was one warrior and an archer.

Try that playing as the Incas. You'll have much better luck.

Overall, though, you've got the right idea: the point of the early rush is to hit the enemy with Axemen when they have nothing better than Archers on defense. Chariots are also not a problem as long as you bring along a couple of spears; in fact, I'd rather face Chariots than Archers, since the former get no fortification or terrain benefits (except for Persia's Immortals, of course).

 

[DMOC]

I was wondering what the more experience players think is a good tech rate. I don't know if there is a good answer or "it depends" but I was wondering what was a suitable tech rate at say, year 1918AD or 600AD, etc...Maybe a formula or something. I know it doesn't matter what the sliders says, only the beakers per turn. But for example, in 1918AD, at 80% research, I was generating over +900 research points per turn. Is that good? Please keep in mind that I am playing at Warlord in my current game.

I just wasn't sure if I should be producing higher or am I in for a rude awakening once I graduate to noble.

Just a general outline for higher difficulty levels, but can also apply to lower ones as well. All of these are for 100% research so you might need to sell techs and maps to AI's for gold. Oh, and these assume that you're not going for a crazy 500 AD domination victory but rather a late game domination victory or a space race.

1 AD - At least 100 beakers (I always aim for 200 myself)
500 AD - At least 200 beakers
1000 AD - At least 400 beakers (of course, really good players already have oxford university up and running by this point for an insane beaker rate).

A fast space race win for the 1800s should probably have a beakers-per-turn rate at around 2,000 per turn.

On warlord, where the AI tech path is slow, 900 sounds pretty reasonable (especially considering that it's at 80% and not 100%). You'll improve as the difficulty level goes up because the aggrandized AI tech speed will help you in turn with beakers-per-turn.

Tips to increase beakers-per-turn for a standard sized map:

1. Get at least 6 cities.
2. Get at least 6 libraries.
3. Get 1 Great Scientist for an academy, and then 1 Great Scientist to bulb Philosophy, then 1 Great Scientist to partially bulb Education. This ensures a quick Liberalism date. Also, getting these Great Scientists can be easier with the National Epic.
4. After Education, start whipping universities. Build Oxford Univeristy ASAP if you want to really raise your research rate. Having stone really helps.

Don't forget to have plenty of workers and make your city population count high. Crucial civics are Hereditary Rule (or Representation if you were fortunate enough to get the Pyramids), Bureaucracy, Slavery (or Caste System, really), and Free Market. The religious civic really depends on the game. Sometimes I prefer Organized Religion, if I'm playing a peaceful game and am surrounded by AI's who favor that civic.

 

[yanner39]

Patrol vs Sentry

I'm just wondering what the difference is? For example, the <CTRL-P> will make the naval unit attack an enemy ship that tries to pillage the tile adjacent to the naval unit.

So for the sentry command, if I set a naval unit of Sentry, it won't move/attack until the enemy unit comes into the line of sight. What is the line of site? 2 tiles?

So essentially when would I use either or? For example, I want to set up my battleships around my WS/Shrine coastal city. I should set these at Sentry or Patrol?

I just don't understand why I would ever use Patrol. If I have an Off-Shore Platform that could be pillaged, I'd just plant a Destroyer beside it on Sentry and if an enemy unit would come into the line of site, it would just attack.

I couldn't find the info in the Civilopedia.

 

[adrianj]

Patrol vs Sentry

my understanding is this:

I'm just wondering what the difference is? For example, the <CTRL-P> will make the naval unit attack an enemy ship that tries to pillage the tile adjacent to the naval unit.

The range is further than adjacent - it could be anywhere within the movement range of your naval unit. So for a destroyer this could be quite far. And your unit will attack the enemy (preventing the pillage if successful) on the enemy's turn.

So for the sentry command, if I set a naval unit of Sentry, it won't move/attack until the enemy unit comes into the line of sight.

The unit will 'wake up' (ie, expect new orders on your next turn) if an enemy unit comes within it's line of sight. Basically, the enemy unit will already have completed its move (including pillaging your resources) before your turn comes along, so you can't react to it in time.

What is the line of site? 2 tiles?

Yes, I think 2 tiles once you have the Optics tech, which must be true if you have destroyers. It can be extended by promotions.

So essentially when would I use either or? For example, I want to set up my battleships around my WS/Shrine coastal city. I should set these at Sentry or Patrol?

I just don't understand why I would ever use Patrol. If I have an Off-Shore Platform that could be pillaged, I'd just plant a Destroyer beside it on Sentry and if an enemy unit would come into the line of site, it would just attack.

I couldn't find the info in the Civilopedia.

Use patrol if you really want to prevent the tile getting pillaged.
If your unit is only on Sentry, it is possible for the enemy unit to move in from the 'fog' and pillage the improvement all in one turn. While your unit will 'wake up' and be able to make retribution, by that time it is one turn too late.
Of course, you could Sentry your units directly on top of the improvement, requiring the enemy to attack your ship before they can move onto the tile, but then you would need as many units as you have improvements.

 

[psionedge]

I've only been playing for about a week on the easy settings now but I have a general question on city placement. (I know I have a long way to go on learning how to optimize.)

I've seen the game sometimes suggest placing a city on top of a resource like iron. Does this prevent me from developing and using this resource? Or does it automatically get it up and running.

I haven't done any trial and error but like I said, I've only been playing a week.

 

[Sisiutil]

I've only been playing for about a week on the easy settings now but I have a general question on city placement. (I know I have a long way to go on learning how to optimize.)

I've seen the game sometimes suggest placing a city on top of a resource like iron. Does this prevent me from developing and using this resource? Or does it automatically get it up and running.

I haven't done any trial and error but like I said, I've only been playing a week.

Building a city on top of a resource gives you immediate access to that resource. However, you will lose most of the extra food, commerce, or production to be gained if you settled near the resource and built the required tile improvement upon it.

Settling on top of a high-yield resource usually makes little sense. For example, you almost never want to settle on top of a good food resource like pigs, wheat, rice, corn, or bananas, because you lose the extra food, and food is crucial in this game. The same goes for high-commerce tiles like gold, silver, gems, and dye; each one of those resources, when developed, provides commerce equivalent to a mature town, but without the dozens of turns of waiting. Settling on top of a strategic resource like iron, copper, or horses, however, can sometimes make sense, even though you give up a lot of hammers; settling on top of a resource, you see, makes it difficult to pillage, since the city would have to be captured or razed for that to happen.

Many other resources provide less stellar yields: fur, silk, ivory, and wine, for example. I'll often settle on top of those if that's the best location for the city.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

I've only been playing for about a week on the easy settings now but I have a general question on city placement. (I know I have a long way to go on learning how to optimize.)

I've seen the game sometimes suggest placing a city on top of a resource like iron. Does this prevent me from developing and using this resource? Or does it automatically get it up and running.

I haven't done any trial and error but like I said, I've only been playing a week.

This is what happens when the computer suggests you to settle atop a resource:

- PROS: When having the proper techs (i.e. mining & iron working for an iron tile), you'll get immediate access to the resource, perhaps a city tile yield bonus (hill metals or plain metals will yield more than the default 1 for a city tile). That helps on the early game (when most stuff requires low production numbers). Also, you'll save some worker usage turns, & the tile will always have the protection you provide to it with the city garrison units. All of that applies to all other resources when located at an unimproved tile (i.e. grassland food, riverside luxuries).

- CONS: An improved resource will always yield more than a settled resource (though it depends on being worked), the tile won't be sharable (enter the city screen of an adjacent city & click the tile you want available to be workable for that city), & the improved tile will be available for the other city.

For my part, I severely despise settling atop resources of any kind. I need too badly the improved tile's yield, which anyays is better on the long run.

 

[Grashopa]

Note that a plains hill stone tile when settled on will giver your city tile 2 food and 3 hammers. Normally the city tile is 2 food 1 hammer. +1 for plains hill, +1 for stone. Food resources will give you +1 food and commerce resources +1 commerce in the city tile.

 

[Lafortezza]

What map settings will give me the following in BTS?

7 civs, all civs isolated on seperate islands until optics, no contact by expanded culture either.
Each civ has room for 7-10 cities.

I've tried lots of different settings but haven't quite got this the way I like it yet.
thank!

 

[Öjevind Lång]

What map settings will give me the following in BTS?

7 civs, all civs isolated on seperate islands until optics, no contact by expanded culture either.
Each civ has room for 7-10 cities.

I've tried lots of different settings but haven't quite got this the way I like it yet.
thank!

To ensure getting that, i think you'd have to use the World Builder.