Condensed tips for beginners?

[frankcor]

Sisiutil, you dispense some pretty good information there. Especially the advice about one of the most fundamental aspects of doing well at Civ -- mix unit types in stacks of units. The use of combined arms is one important technique that allowed me to move up in levels. Timid Turtle might consider adding a few Spearmen to his force if his enemy possesses mounted units.

 

[Timid Turtle]

Good point to raise for beginners to have spear men in your deck as well to fight off mounted units. Combined with a few axemen and a catapult or two, you can break up almost any attack (once again my feelings against swordsmen is showing)

 

[mystyfly]

using swords vs axes is difficult. If the enemy has no metals, swords are clearly better. If the enemy has a stack only defended by melee units, axes are superior. But as soon as your enemy has axes, spears and archers mixed to defend their cities, swords are vital, with some shock axes as protection.

 

[schwanger]

I have a couple of questions I wanted to run by the more experienced players around here.

First of all, I'm curious about what people hold the value of gold to be. I've read a lot that it's important to keep the research slider above 60% while breaking even money-wise (usually as a tip to recognize over-zealous expansion). But I want to know when it is advisable to do more than just break even. I'm currently playing vanilla on noble, and I find that it's rare to see the AI with more than 150 gold; whereas I start to get nervous below 500, so I'm wondering if I'm making too much money. But part of the reason I ask is that I find with a moderately-sized army, I can't really afford to upgrade many of my units once I get the appropriate technology. Is my problem not having enough cash on hand, or should I focus less on upgrading units and more on building new units (and perhaps only upgrading the ones with the best promotions)?

Another question I have has to do with conquest. I've read that a lot of people say that you should typically raze AI cities that don't have wonders or that didn't found a religion. But then what do you do with all that open space? I would think that razing a lot of cities is going to leave a power vacuum which is going to be filled rather quickly by barbarians and/or other civs. Would you recommend building your own cities in the wake of the ones you destroyed, despite the economic hit you're going to take, or is it better to leave fog busters and expand more slowly and hope the AI doesn't sneak in?

 

[Sisiutil]

I have a couple of questions I wanted to run by the more experienced players around here.

First of all, I'm curious about what people hold the value of gold to be. I've read a lot that it's important to keep the research slider above 60% while breaking even money-wise (usually as a tip to recognize over-zealous expansion). But I want to know when it is advisable to do more than just break even. I'm currently playing vanilla on noble, and I find that it's rare to see the AI with more than 150 gold; whereas I start to get nervous below 500, so I'm wondering if I'm making too much money. But part of the reason I ask is that I find with a moderately-sized army, I can't really afford to upgrade many of my units once I get the appropriate technology. Is my problem not having enough cash on hand, or should I focus less on upgrading units and more on building new units (and perhaps only upgrading the ones with the best promotions)?

Another question I have has to do with conquest. I've read that a lot of people say that you should typically raze AI cities that don't have wonders or that didn't found a religion. But then what do you do with all that open space? I would think that razing a lot of cities is going to leave a power vacuum which is going to be filled rather quickly by barbarians and/or other civs. Would you recommend building your own cities in the wake of the ones you destroyed, despite the economic hit you're going to take, or is it better to leave fog busters and expand more slowly and hope the AI doesn't sneak in?

Having extra cash on hand is always nice. There are many uses for it. I usually only upgrade units that, as you say, are highly promoted--basically, units with more promotions than I can easily create brand-new. But if I get an unexpected declaration of war and a stack invades my territory, the gold may enable me to upgrade units at the point of incursion.

You can also use it to push the slider into deficit territory to temporarily accelerate research; you can use it to bribe other civs, or buy their techs or maps; if you run universal suffrage, you can buy buildings; and with random events, it's always nice to have a rainy-day fund just in case. 500 gold is a good amount to have around for this purpose.

For conquest games, you're trying to eliminate all opponents without tripping the domination victory triggers of population and land. Thus, you'll need to raze several cities and leave territory unoccupied. The best way to do this is to leave a few units behind in the empty territory. They'll fog-bust to prevent barb cities from appearing (not that that's a major concern--you don't have to eliminate barbs to win by conquest). They can also attack any settling stacks the AI civs send to that location. You may balk at leaving units hanging around empty territory, but consider this: if you'd kept the city, you would have had to leave some units there anyway to garrison it, correct? So what's the diff?

 

[natxavier]

Does your city square itself allow the spreading of irrigation once Civil Service has been researched?

 

[Sisiutil]

Does your city square itself allow the spreading of irrigation once Civil Service has been researched?

Yes, provided it's on flat terrain (i.e. not on a hill).

 

[schwanger]

For conquest games, you're trying to eliminate all opponents without tripping the domination victory triggers of population and land. Thus, you'll need to raze several cities and leave territory unoccupied. The best way to do this is to leave a few units behind in the empty territory. They'll fog-bust to prevent barb cities from appearing (not that that's a major concern--you don't have to eliminate barbs to win by conquest). They can also attack any settling stacks the AI civs send to that location. You may balk at leaving units hanging around empty territory, but consider this: if you'd kept the city, you would have had to leave some units there anyway to garrison it, correct? So what's the diff?

What if I'm not necessarily trying to win a conquest game? I ask because on my current game, I'm doing a continents map without the old world/new world thing (I don't understand the appeal). I had 2 other guys on my continent and one of them (Ghengis Khan) was pissing me off, so I (along with the other guy on our continent) decided to kill him. I ended up razing all of his cities except the capital and building new cities in the same areas. I was able to follow up my invasion force with settlers and defenders pretty quickly so the AI didn't have the chance to sneak in, and my economy was more than strong enough to handle the additional cities.

But I'm curious if there was actually any advantage to rebuilding rather than just keeping the cities I captured. I know there's a happiness penalty for captured cities, but that goes away after you finish wiping out the civ. And razing the cities also carries the advantage of being able to chose your own city locations for better specialization, but that's offset to a great degree by the infrastructure you're giving up and the time it takes to develop a new city to the point where it's productive and not a drain on the economy. One thing I'm particularly curious about is whether or not city upkeep costs are higher for captured cities than they are for cities you've built yourself.

And now let me move on to a different, but related topic. I'm now looking at invading another continent. My target is the French, who are the most advanced civ at the moment. My goal is to steal their techs until I've caught up to them and to cripple their economy to the point where they'll be a non-factor in the future. This is one of my first games, so for now I'm just going for a time victory with perhaps an outside shot at winning the space race. I want to know if I should just raze the cities I capture or if it might be a good idea to keep maybe the first one or 2 so I have a fallback point and a place to heal my army. I have fairly good relations with Japan, his closest neighbor, but I'm not sure if I can convince him to support me rather than the guy I'm attacking.

 

[Sisiutil]

In early wars, the general rule is "keep the best, raze the rest" because you can't afford too many cities early on. Later in the game, though, your ability to absorb existing cities into your empire grows, so you should usually keep more cities than you raze.

There are actually several disadvantages to razing versus capturing. As you said, you are sacrificing infrastructure that you'll have to rebuild; captured cities often contain anywhere from 1 or 2 to a dozen buildings. You are also sacrificing population which will take quite some time to grow back. You also have to build many, many Settlers. Overall, you're throwing away a lot of hammers you didn't need to.

As for the culture/unhappiness problems in captured cities: In the example you mentioned, you eliminated Khan completely--in which case, all Mongol culture disappears along with the "We wish to rejoin our motherland!" unhappiness. So you probably lost more than you gained by razing all those cities.

By the time mid-game rolls around, and I have things like courthouses, markets, and maturing cottages to offset the cost of expanding my empire, I keep far more cities than I raze. I usually only raze a city if it's in an absolutely terrible location, or if moving it a little will hugely improve it.

 

[Charonicus]

Where do I start...?
Hi, firstly.
Been playing Civ Iv for a few weeks now. Haven't played the previous games but so many people raved about this that I just had to get it, and the expansions soon followed.
I've managed to rack up some wins on lower difficulty settings, but hitting noble I realize I need some serious improvement in my tactics. >_< I've already made my way through this thread, and Sulla's fantastic walkthrough, but I'm still struggling.

Diplomatically, I'm great. I know how to pick and choose my friends and I tend to do fine in that respect, but... well, some specific questions follow.

1. Early barbarian attacks. I've noticed, both in single and multiplayer with my brother, that somewhere between 2000BC and say 1000AD I tend to get hit by wave after wave of barbarians. Whilst they're no real trouble they do have a habit of damaging my economy by taking out workers and improvements usually before I have a decent amount of troops to spare. Is there some way to protect against this? It's annoying because around that time I'm usually trying to get a couple more cities on the go and put archers in them. (yes I've scouted my immediate area to remove black areas)

2. Workers. What improvements on what tiles? I tend to favour cottages but I usually end up with cities with low hammer yields due to all the forests I've cleared. :S Any tips?

3. Units. How the hell does the AI create so many units so fast? And how do they afford the maintenance? I'll use the ever popular Montezuma as an example. ¬¬ Even though I choose the civs to boost my military production and whatnot, a war with him usually ends up with me razing one or sometimes two of his cities but losing most of my military in the process from his retaliation. He also seems to have an easy time raping my cities with 15 defenders in whereas I struggle to take out a city of his with only two units in, regardless of how many catapults I launch at it.

4. How come, if I have say a spearman and a macemen in a stack (obviously a stack is bigger but for the sake of example...) and Monte has a horse archer and a jaguar... why when I choose my spearman is he facing the jaguar and not the horse archer (and vice versa). Is there a way to choose which unit to attack or do you always face the most inappropriate unit?

5. Musketmen. Are these just useless or what? Seems they can't kill anything. Am I wasting my time building these? I always thought gunpowder would be an advantage but they just die so easily.

6. Espionage... Is there a point? I've noticed in the replays that the AI barely increases its rate until 1200AD+, sometimes later. Is there an optimum time to increase this at all?

7. Warlike people. If I'm surrounded by say Montezuma, Ghenghis and ummm Alexander or Napolean, even if they are friendly to me, should I just give up? Seems nothing can keep them happy regardless. I had Ghenghis turn on me with a +8 relationship. O_O

8. The Apolostic (sp?) Palace. The reason why I prefer Warlords to Beyond the Sword. All it seems to do is get me dragged into war. I presume the idea is to be voted leader of this horrific monstrosity? Short of building it myself, is it even possible to become (and stay) leader? >_<

9. Money. Where is there never enough money? Even with the shrine it just seems to cost me a fortune in city/troop maintenance. Oh sure courthouses, markets, banks and grocers help, if I can keep Monte off my ass long enough to build them. But it seems that the amount of troops I require to protect my cities, mines, borders and other important resources sucks out any income I get from shrines and cottages.

Ok, that's a lot of questions. And I appreciate any help in advance. ^^ The real thing bugging me is just, what am I doing wrong in Noble that worked fine in Warlord?

 

[URSExelcior]

1. Early barbarian attacks. I've noticed, both in single and multiplayer with my brother, that somewhere between 2000BC and say 1000AD I tend to get hit by wave after wave of barbarians. Whilst they're no real trouble they do have a habit of damaging my economy by taking out workers and improvements usually before I have a decent amount of troops to spare. Is there some way to protect against this? It's annoying because around that time I'm usually trying to get a couple more cities on the go and put archers in them. (yes I've scouted my immediate area to remove black areas)

1. Build more Warriors.
2. Research Archery early on and build archers for defense.
3. Research Bronze Working/Animal Husbandry, hope you have either Copper or Horses and build Axemen/Chariots for defense.
4. Build the Great Wall (it won't protect your settlers or prevent the barbarians from founding their own cities, though)
5. Fog-bust. Barbarians only spawn in the fog of war, so establish a defensive perimeter of units (2 or 3) around your territory (fortify them on hills/forests). Your units will intercept barbs before they enter your territory and will also prevent barbs from spawning right next to you because of their line of sight. Barbs are stupid and will usually suicide into your fortified units.

Barbs shouldn't be a problem in 1000 AD though Are you building enough units?

Also, your workers are very important and expensive, especially early on. Don't lose them. Getting pillaged isn't as bad as losing a worker.

2. Workers. What improvements on what tiles? I tend to favour cottages but I usually end up with cities with low hammer yields due to all the forests I've cleared. :S Any tips?

It depends. Specialize your cities. Here's an article:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/city_specialization.php

3. Units. How the hell does the AI create so many units so fast? And how do they afford the maintenance?

On difficulties above Noble, the AI gets a bonus in everything (research, production, etc.), as well as starting off with more units.

I'll use the ever popular Montezuma as an example. ¬¬ Even though I choose the civs to boost my military production and whatnot, a war with him usually ends up with me razing one or sometimes two of his cities but losing most of my military in the process from his retaliation. He also seems to have an easy time raping my cities with 15 defenders in whereas I struggle to take out a city of his with only two units in, regardless of how many catapults I launch at it.

Hmm, I can't give you precise advice because I don't know your exact situation, but here are a few things to look out for:

1. Did you bring enough units and siege?
2. Are your units outdated? (Swordsmen vs. Longbowmen is not a good idea)
3. Are you attacking with the correct units? (city attack promotions, etc.)
4. Did you bombard the city defense down to 0% before suiciding your siege for collateral damage? (bombarding takes a very long time if the city has walls and a castle)
5. Is the city on a hill?
6. Is it a holy city?
7. Are you attacking a Protective leader?
8. Was Montezuma much stronger than you to begin with? (check the power graph)

If you still have trouble taking a city with two defenders, it might just be bad luck.

4. How come, if I have say a spearman and a macemen in a stack (obviously a stack is bigger but for the sake of example...) and Monte has a horse archer and a jaguar... why when I choose my spearman is he facing the jaguar and not the horse archer (and vice versa). Is there a way to choose which unit to attack or do you always face the most inappropriate unit?

The game automatically selects the best defender in the stack depending on what unit you attack with.

In your example, the best unit to defend against your spearmen is the jaguar, hence the game chose the jaguar as the defender instead of the horse archer.

5. Musketmen. Are these just useless or what? Seems they can't kill anything. Am I wasting my time building these? I always thought gunpowder would be an advantage but they just die so easily.

I'm not a big fan of musketmen either, but they do have two advantages:

1. No ressources required to build them.
2. No good counter in their era.

6. Espionage... Is there a point? I've noticed in the replays that the AI barely increases its rate until 1200AD+, sometimes later. Is there an optimum time to increase this at all?

The best uses for espionage are:

1. Stealing technologies.
2. Causing a city revolt. This is nice because it instantly removes a city's defense bonus (instant 0%) without having to bombard the city with siege. Very useful in war-time and shortens wars considerably.

Direct your espionage points towards the tech leader or your next war target.

Regarding the espionage slider, it is never worth increasing it, with very, very few exceptions, so leave it at 0% and ignore it. Focus on increasing the research slider.

7. Warlike people. If I'm surrounded by say Montezuma, Ghenghis and ummm Alexander or Napolean, even if they are friendly to me, should I just give up? Seems nothing can keep them happy regardless. I had Ghenghis turn on me with a +8 relationship. O_O

Ghenghis isn't much of a backstabber. If he declared at +8 it's because he was bribed, because of an Apostolic Palace vote against you or because your power rating was too low and you looked like a juicy target. Always check the power graph and make sure you have at least 65-70% of the AI's power.

War-like leaders are easy to bribe into wars and are slow techers, so keep them busy fighting between themselves and go after them one at a time with a vengeance once you have more advanced units.

8. The Apolostic (sp?) Palace. The reason why I prefer Warlords to Beyond the Sword. All it seems to do is get me dragged into war. I presume the idea is to be voted leader of this horrific monstrosity? Short of building it myself, is it even possible to become (and stay) leader? >_<

You'll either love or hate the Apostolic Palace .

I don't have that much experience with it, but try to adopt the AP's religion and avoid being universally hated by everyone by being of a different religion. Building it is a good idea if you can because it guarantees your eligibility as leader in the elections.

9. Money. Where is there never enough money? Even with the shrine it just seems to cost me a fortune in city/troop maintenance. Oh sure courthouses, markets, banks and grocers help, if I can keep Monte off my ass long enough to build them. But it seems that the amount of troops I require to protect my cities, mines, borders and other important resources sucks out any income I get from shrines and cottages.

Gold is less important than research. Gold is useful for mass upgrades and random events, but your top priority should be to increase the research slider with a profit.

If you desperately need gold you can:

1. Sell some old techs to a backwards AI.
2. Drop the research slider to 0% for a few turns.
3. Try getting a Great Merchant and use him for a trade mission.

What am I doing wrong in Noble that worked fine in Warlord?

It could be many things. Not building enough units, wonder addiction, not specializing cities, not expanding enough, expanding too much, not building enough workers, not researching Bronze Working/Animal Husbandry early on, etc.

I suggest you read the articles in the War Academy and read the ALC games (all 24 of them ).

 

[Charonicus]

That's a whole heap of help.

1. Build more Warriors.
2. Research Archery early on and build archers for defense.
3. Research Bronze Working/Animal Husbandry, hope you have either Copper or Horses and build Axemen/Chariots for defense.
4. Build the Great Wall (it won't protect your settlers or prevent the barbarians from founding their own cities, though)
5. Fog-bust. Barbarians only spawn in the fog of war, so establish a defensive perimeter of units (2 or 3) around your territory (fortify them on hills/forests). Your units will intercept barbs before they enter your territory and will also prevent barbs from spawning right next to you because of their line of sight. Barbs are stupid and will usually suicide into your fortified units.

Barbs shouldn't be a problem in 1000 AD though Are you building enough units?

Also, your workers are very important and expensive, especially early on. Don't lose them. Getting pillaged isn't as bad as losing a worker.

Archery and Bronze working is my usual research path. But to increase unit production I need those damn settlers, and those are turns I can't be producing units. >_< What a cache 22. I do try and set a defensive perimeter as soon as I'm able though. Guess I'll have to keep try to improve my unit production skills.
Losing workers... I had a line of three units fortified at one point that stood by as a barbarian warrior skirted round them and slew a worker. Must have just been random unluckiness. I do have to keep pulling workers away and rebuilding what's being pillaged a lot.

It depends. Specialize your cities. Here's an article:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/stra...ialization.php

Thanks. I'll take a look. I usually manage to get a city geared towards military and one slowly churning out great people.

On difficulties above Noble, the AI gets a bonus in everything (research, production, etc.), as well as starting off with more units.

Oh...

Hmm, I can't give you precise advice because I don't know your exact situation, but here are a few things to look out for:

1. Did you bring enough units and siege?
2. Are your units outdated? (Swordsmen vs. Longbowmen is not a good idea)
3. Are you attacking with the correct units? (city attack promotions, etc.)
4. Did you bombard the city defense down to 0% before suiciding your siege for collateral damage? (bombarding takes a very long time if the city has walls and a castle)
5. Is the city on a hill?
6. Is it a holy city?
7. Are you attacking a Protective leader?
8. Was Montezuma much stronger than you to begin with? (check the power graph)

If you still have trouble taking a city with two defenders, it might just be bad luck.

How many is enough? Which I suppose is as bad as 'how long is a piece of string'. I always like to have three or more catapults and then a bunch of city raider types. I always bombard them down to zero and then try and send the cats in for collateral damage until they are dead. I guess I just need more units on the follow through. I had a city raider 2 axemen get mauled by an already weakened archer yesterday that just made me wanna scream. >_<
On a hill. Good point. I hadn't paid as much attention to hills as I probably should have.
Holy city, that one wasn't, is there a large defensive bonus on those? (The AI seems to love attacking my holy city).
Monte was probably stronger than me, isn't he always? ¬¬ And yet he still finds time to squeeze out the occasional wonder in between his mass unit production.

The game automatically selects the best defender in the stack depending on what unit you attack with.

In your example, the best unit to defend against your spearmen is the jaguar, hence the game chose the jaguar as the defender instead of the horse archer.

Hmmm. I probably had too many spearmen in the stack then. I should leave those at home for defense.

I'm not a big fan of musketmen either, but they do have two advantages:

1. No ressources required to build them.
2. No good counter in their era.

Yeah, they are a cheap build, but they do seem to get trampled over by war elephants. ¬¬

The best uses for espionage are:

1. Stealing technologies.
2. Causing a city revolt. This is nice because it instantly removes a city's defense bonus (instant 0%) without having to bombard the city with siege. Very useful in war-time and shortens wars considerably.

Direct your espionage points towards the tech leader or your next war target.

Regarding the espionage slider, it is never worth increasing it, with very, very few exceptions, so leave it at 0% and ignore it. Focus on increasing the research slider.

I've already discovered the wonders of stealing tech. ^^ I hadn't thought to gear points specifically towards the current tech leader. Good idea.
City revolts during war, how cunning! Maybe spies aren't as useless as I thought. Still no way I'm budging that slider off 0% though. Research is always priority unless I end up aiming for a culture win.

Ghenghis isn't much of a backstabber. If he declared at +8 it's because he was bribed, because of an Apostolic Palace vote against you or because your power rating was too low and you looked like a juicy target. Always check the power graph and make sure you have at least 65-70% of the AI's power.

War-like leaders are easy to bribe into wars and are slow techers, so keep them busy fighting between themselves and go after them one at a time with a vengeance once you have more advanced units.

It must have been a bribe, I suspected as much. He's a pretty stupid AI Ghenghis. We both had the same religion and were in the AP. So he declares war on me and the very next turn, the palace ruled stop the war on Ghenghis? Not stop the war on poor old me, no, on 'hulk smash' Ghenghis. And he even voted yes! >_< World's shortest war.

You'll either love or hate the Apostolic Palace .

I don't have that much experience with it, but try to adopt the AP's religion and avoid being universally hated by everyone by being of a different religion. Building it is a good idea if you can because it guarantees your eligibility as leader in the elections.

Hate it. If you want to be liked by your immediate allies you have to be in it. Even getting my relations up well with the other members (+18 with both of the other two members one game) they just won't vote for me. Guess I need the population to ensure more weight to my votes. I've never actually built it, far too busy building troops. I do change my religion to get in if I'm not already but then the downward spiral begins. Stop trading with this guy, cancel deals with him, hey, why don't we all war with the most powerful civ in range? ¬¬ I've had to defy that once or twice when they've voted for a war and I'm already warring with someone else. Or when they've tried to enforce peace right as I get a city down to it's last weakened archer.

Gold is less important than research. Gold is useful for mass upgrades and random events, but your top priority should be to increase the research slider with a profit.

If you desperately need gold you can:

1. Sell some old techs to a backwards AI.
2. Drop the research slider to 0% for a few turns.
3. Try getting a Great Merchant and use him for a trade mission.

Military upkeep is what gets me. I need the troops, but they suck out my gold always. Sooner or later dwindling funds cause that research slider to drop. And those random events do love to come during wartime, when the gold is needed more than anything. I've tried selling techs and some civs cough up, but most either have no cash themselves or have already got the techs I'm offering.
Dropping research to 0 for a few turns. Not a bad idea. I might try that, could give a quick boost. Probably the best tip yet.
Great merchants, oh I've cottoned on to that already. I had a game where I managed to end up with over 3000 thanks to a city churning out great merchants. I was doing ok defensively on that game but my enemies were all across the ocean and that's a whole different element of gameplay. Those cargo vessels go down so easy. Need to practice my route to destroyers to use as escorts.

Thanks for all the info though. I'll put a lot of that into play on my next game and see what happens and check out the guides and stuff that you mentioned.
To victory!

 

[KiTBOH]

Choking an Opponent...

what is it? how do you do it? and how does it work?
I've looked around the forums and haven't been able to find anything, but i've seen it pop up in a few threads.

Is it just fortifying troops near an enemy city on a wooded hill, or any other tile with a high defence bonus?

Thanks

 

[dalamb]

"Choking" refers to restricting your opponents' territorial options, especially by placing cities to block his expansion.

 

[KiTBOH]

OK Thanks.

 

[mystyfly]

I think choking means fortifying some units near the enemy's capital (especially early). This prevents the AI from moving out workers and settlers mostly and leaves the AI's land undeveloped. This slows down its teching and expansion and leaves more space for your own cities.
Often it's done by a warrior who gets woodsman promotions from fighting barbs who is reinforced later by archers if the player wants to keep it up.

Also many players consider it an exploit. It's up to you whether you want to use it or not.

 

[Lasitus]

Charonicus: I was in your shoes not long ago. I kicked butt on warlord to the point where I didn't find it fun, and I got my butt handed to me on noble. I read this article by Sisiutil, which helped me to the point where I now win pretty easily on noble.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/earlyrush.php

You shouldn't have to worry about barbs anymore, once you put this into practice, and you can take monty out before he is a threat. (I mean way early, like before more than one city expansion.)

Take the following with a grain of salt, since I am only a noble player who is thinking about moving up to prince...

I have been messing with allowing my economy go into the tank while warring early. I supplement this by whipping a library in almost every city and putting two scientists to work there. (I beeline writing after the basics are fulfilled, completely ignoring religion techs) I like to build a cottage economy, but I think a specialist economy during the transition helps out a lot. Once I get courthouses everywhere and a couple of cottage cities in place, I can push up the slider. (keeping it near the break even point)

 

[Charonicus]

Heh heh, exactly. Stuck between Warlord and Noble. >_<
I put what I've learnt to use in a game yesterday with mixed results.
I stocked up on units early, watching that power graph because as usual I'd spawned side by side with my old buddy Montzuma. ¬¬ I did manage to build the great wall right as the barbarian waves began though and watched with glee as archer after archer marched right past me over to Monte.
Clearly he was upset like this and before long, threw a tantrum and declared war. But this time... I was ready.
He'd made the mistake of pissing off Sitting Bull who was below me and without any prompting, our Indian friend joined in the war two turns later. Between us we gave him such a kicking. I took three of Monte's cities for myself and he ended up surrendering, becoming a vassal of Sitting Bull.
Diplomatically I'd now managed to culture Sitting Bull and PAcal II as allies and had converted to Hinduism to please them, leaving just Charlemagne some distance away as a Buddhist and four unknown civs on another continent.

However... I'd concentrated too much on the warfare! My economy was struggling and never really recovered and to make it worse, that sneaky Sitting Bull had built above me whilst I was warring with Monte, leaving me with only one coastal city ready for when the other civs come knocking.
And he wasn't done fooling me there either.
He declared war on Charlemagne and when he came calling for my assistance I figured, why not? I have units ready, I could take another city, it might help. I marched over to the nearest Holy Roman city and Sitting Bull promtply declared peace, leaving me stranded. I still took down the city and razed it for good measure.
About this time the other civs made their way to us. Lizzy was first, with no religion. Then the jews, Tokugawa, Christine and the Ethiopian guy. Clearly the Ethiopian guy had been doing well, his score was twice that of his nearest rival and he had two vassals. ¬¬
Charlemagne was still at war with me for some reason and then the unthinkable happened. EVERYONE declared war on me ('cept Pacal, my friend) Even that treacherous dog, Sitting Bull.
Boxed in on all sides I could only weep as my cities were slowly conquered by sheer numbers. Wiped out in 1933. ¬¬

But on the plus side I've evaluated the game and discovered my holes. I need to work better on economy management and city specialization. I also need to expand faster, even during wartime. I'm getting the hang of warfare but I definitely need to speed up in that respect. It wasn't the best result ever, being my second ever total obliteration, but a valuable lesson nonetheless. Let's hope I can do better next time. >_<

I'm still taking time to read through articles offered so thanks for the continued advice. ^^

 

[natxavier]

When creating a Custom Game, what exactly is the effect of choosing the option "Random Personalities?"

 

[dalamb]

Each leader has a "personality" -- Monty is kill-crazy, Mansa loves to tech and trade, Cathy is prone to backstabbing .... With Random Personalities, you can't tell in advance which leader behaves which way.