Convince me to go up to Emperor

[Notenoughtrebs]

Hi, long time lurker first time poster here.

I play at Monarch and fancy myself at it. I win about 4 out of 5 times, usually through domination, around 1800 or 1900.

When I do lose it is almost always something I could have prevented and kick myself for not thinking of it, so I still think this level is a challenge.

The other reason I am not inclined to go up is the intimidating rep that emperor has. The 1 or 2 emperor guides I have read are pretty grim- you must get the pyramids to have any chance, run slavery virtually the whole game, don't build any wonders except such and such. I feel like this would be too stressful and I would not enjoy the game.

Furthermore, as I play marathon, usually on large maps, it can take weeks to finish a game. So with all the leaders and civs, not to mention the map types, I have spent over two years at monarch and feel there is a lot of variation left to explore.

So should I go up?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Welcome to CFC!

I play Emperor most of the time.

If you don't have BtS Emperor was a big step up from Monarch (vanilla/warlords). On BtS it isn't so bad.

You don't need the Pyramids to win. You must have a solid plan though. I usually change from slavery to caste system once I have enough universities for Oxford (sometimes I change after whipping courthouses everywhere).

I mainly win peaceful-ish games at Emperor (culture, UN or space), normally have an early land grab war then consolidate. For UN wins I will join in with wars against AIs that are being beaten up.

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

Thanks!

Btw what is the connection between Oxford and caste system? Just a time to change that you feel comfortable with?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Universities are the last big builds that must be completed ASAP I find, so I whip or chop them usually. EDIT: They are normally built in high commerce low production cities as well.

After that cities are normally large enough to make slavery less than optimal.

 

[DreamworK]

the game is more fun at difficulties lower than emperor. i understand what you mean about worrying about the game becoming more stressful--in order to win 95% of your games, you have to repeatedly check your trade screens for viable tech trades and very importantly gold trades (in order to continue to run a high slider).

In the last game i played, i did indeed grab pyramids early and was able to get around 120 bpt around 20AD--unless I had just researched a monopoly tech or close enough to a monopoly to trade it around for gold. From my experience, going up in difficulties has thus far increased the amount of concentration and stress associated with winning a high percentage of games. I think I actually enjoy the game less at the higher levels -- but the catch is that i also enjoy the game less at lower difficulty levels now as well (i feel as if I am not challenged enough and I am somehow cheating myself).

My suggestion is to stay at whatever feels right for you. If you want a bit more of a challenge, move up to emperor. If you find that it isn't worth the time spent micro-managing and playing a different style (a higher emphasis on specialists is needed early in emperor+ games) isn't fun, then don't worry about it and go back to where you feel is most enjoyable.

It's not always a matter of winning or losing -- it's your game, play how you want to play.

 

[sanarchy]

It's no fun winning all the time is it?
If i beat a level I go up, if I lose i go one down [untill emperor], currently at immortal and winning [so deity is next!]. [I also put aggressive AI on and raging barbarians, that's even harder for the player I think.]

I don't follow a strict way of doing things, that would be very foolish imho.
I NEVER use slavery, pyramids CAN be necessary but most of the time aren't.
Micromanagent in my opinion is not necessary at all. [Of course work your city-tiles sensible, but no need to alter it every other turn]'.

What is important is the grand strategy. And that is most of the time: WARFARE.
The AI has bonusses in all aspects except in strategic thinking, so that's were the game should go for you.

And to beat the game at immortal is so much more satisfying then on monarch/emperor. I still can't play deity without needing a #%$load of luck so it's not yet any fun for me, but the thrill of surviving in the beginning and slowly climbing the powergraph despite fierce opposition is really GREAT!!

 

[dr_s]

I switched to emperor a few months ago. It was a bit of a slog at first, but now I'm thinking of moving up to immortal. I switched because Monarch was becoming too easy. Even if I wasn't winning every game (I sometimes abandon early on if I feel I've screwed up), I was dominating too many games for it to be fun. My last game was a domination win in the 1600's for a 205k score (my highest yet), but I had some help: gold in my capital and I popped horseback riding from a hut.

You don't need any particular wonders to succeed at Emperor, and you can certainly build wonders, you just need a plan. (Although I do have games where I don't build any world wonders.) The main things that mess me up if I don't pay attention are (a) getting boxed in, (b) not doing a good enough job of barb-busting, (c) allowing my military to fall too far behind and getting DOW'd, or (d) under-preparing or over-committing to early war and falling too far behind.

 

[Framesticker]

It's no fun winning all the time is it?
If i beat a level I go up, if I lose i go one down [untill emperor], currently at immortal and winning [so deity is next!]. [I also put aggressive AI on and raging barbarians, that's even harder for the player I think.]

I don't follow a strict way of doing things, that would be very foolish imho.
I NEVER use slavery, pyramids CAN be necessary but most of the time aren't.
Micromanagent in my opinion is not necessary at all. [Of course work your city-tiles sensible, but no need to alter it every other turn]'.

What is important is the grand strategy. And that is most of the time: WARFARE.
The AI has bonusses in all aspects except in strategic thinking, so that's were the game should go for you.

And to beat the game at immortal is so much more satisfying then on monarch/emperor. I still can't play deity without needing a #%$load of luck so it's not yet any fun for me, but the thrill of surviving in the beginning and slowly climbing the powergraph despite fierce opposition is really GREAT!!

Aggressive AI doesn't always make the game harder. In fact, in these cases the AI tends to get backwards (since they favor military techs and squashing everything that moves rather then establish economies).

 

[Aristos]

to the OP:

disable Tech Brokering, go up to Emperor, and you will never come back down...

What makes higher level games stressful and, yes, GAMEY, is mainly the Tech Whoring of the AI. If you play with No Tech Brokering on, you neglect most part of the whoring (and it adds a challenge to you too, because you can only trade techs that you have developed)...

Oh, and use Better BTS AI and BUG, or better yet, the compilation of both called Better BUG AI... no gameplay alterations, great GUI, and a better AI.

Forget Aggressive AI. It's like fighting a gorila with guns, something like fighting Hugo Chavez... the AI becomes really dumb and only focuses on units. Not fun, and easier.

Enjoy Emperor! With this settings, I have found that you don't need to be GAMEY (which is what the guides try to teach you), and therefore enjoy the game at your style.

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

Hmmm, I'm feeling a bit closer to giving Emperor a whirl.

I usually play with technology brokering off in any case. I consider it pretty ridiculous.

Will try with Rome.

Can't imagine how to survive without slavery, though. What happens if you are attacked in the BCs and you have little or no miliary? In fact, units that were originally whipped into being often travel on into the centuries and become the core of a great army...

 

[sanarchy]

If someone is really close to you and declares war very soon then maybe whipping is the only solution. But like I said, i almost never use slavery, it just conflicts with my main strategic idea when I play the game: efficiency of resources.
Also putting raging barbarians can make live easier for you. The AI has the advantage of starting with a few archers but you have the advantage of KNOWING there will be hordes of barbarians. It'll slow down AI expansion a little. And yours too naturally, but I personnaly always like to let my capital grow as fast as possible without building too much settlers/workers. [Only when it's capped at it's limit]. I never did the math about this, but if it takes 20 turns to build a worker in the beginning, when you could also have 2 warriors [maybe a workboat] and a city size 2 or 3, and then it takes only 10 turns to build a worker, I opt for the second strategy.

Also, in reply to the comment about Agressive AI: the AI ALWAYS fights like a gorilla with guns. I agree that AAI CAN be an advantage. [Especially cause the player knows what to expect.] But I 'm not sure it makes the game easier by default. From my experience I had pretty easy games on high levels without it. The AI would just sit there and never attack my poorly protected/rich cities. Now THAT's even more stupid.
Also it's more fun to see some action between the AI's, with AAI some real big powers can emerge. Now that's more difficult then a lot averagely strong AI's isn't it?

But, in the end, to beat the AI you just have to attack him, sitting peacefully next to it will never work on the highest levels.

On emperor and above the beginning is just surviving, try not get killed as long as possible and when the time is ready, prey on the weak. HELL YEAH.

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

Sanarchy,

It's interesting that you can survive without slavery on high levels. Can anybody else back this up?

It seems odd to me that slavery is not deemed to be an efficient use of resources. To instantly turn excess population into units or buildings, especially when you have reached the happiness cap...what could be more efficient than that?

 

[sanarchy]

Sanarchy,

It's interesting that you can survive without slavery on high levels. Can anybody else back this up?

It seems odd to me that slavery is not deemed to be an efficient use of resources. To instantly turn excess population into units or buildings, especially when you have reached the happiness cap...what could be more efficient than that?

Well, I never did the math about this as well, but it's my intuition that it's not efficient at all and more a method one should only use in an emergency situation.

More population = more tiles to work, which yields immediate hammers + gold. Also less maintenance cost for your army. When a city grows beyond it's limit it's another story but you still got the penalty which also kills production etc.
[So when a city is at his cap, then build the workers/settlers, this game is not like previous civ's where you had to expand as fast as possible.]

And what do you get in return? A granary? A library? Those buildings only start to pay of in the long run. [Maybe to have the first border-culture-pop, but a monument costs not much.] [A lighthouse would be an exception maybe] And what can you do with a lot of units if your civilization cannot support them properly?

But then again, I saw posts of people who DID do the math about slavery and who where very enthousiastic about it. But like I said, I only used it once (!) I believe when playing the guy with the sacrificial altar [Montezuma?] and I win most my emperor games and about 30% of immortal games.

I don't have a specific strategy, I mostly think in terms of efficiency. So I take a lot of risks, with always just enough units to reach my goals [too much = too expensive.]
3 supercities are better than 30 crappy ones.
10 veteran units are better than 30 unupgraded.
[Only because they're cheaper to maintain.]
etc..

And of course in warfare the AI is indeed immensly stupid. Plan your battle ahead, get an idea of how many units/and what kind the enemy has. Where can he attack? What are possible strategic points to take, can you maybe destroy his copper/iron? The AI will almost always do the same things. Last game [immortal] I declared war on Cyrus who had about 4 times my army [mine was a little more advanced though, big difference: I had 20 fighters, he about 10.] Took one city the first turn, razed it cause it was a bad one, retreated to my own territory. A few turns later he marches almost half his army into my territory [on 1 tile!] where I slaughter it with maybe 1 or 2 units loss [thanks to fighters & artillery]. The rest was easy...


So, at the point where you can build a decent army, you can hurt EVERY AI, no matter how big his army is.

The only big thing [besides being surprise-attacked] to watch out for on the highest levels is falling behind in techs, that's just a downwards spiral. They'll trade amongst each other while you have nothing to offer in return. Always just let the AI rip you of in trades, without tech brokering at least he can't profit anymore from it. [And you get the nice +4 relations boost.]
Civilizations that are at the bottom of the foodchain can get my techs if they got a little gold to spare if they're fighting with a competitor [so they can put up a good fight.]

Ok, don't wan't to make a strategy-guide or anything. Al those things are already discussed on this forum in detail anyway. But, I really don't get this point about slavery being crucial. Another thing I totally disagree with is the need to micromanage everything. I saw stories about someone who calculated about every turn every cities build-efficiency and moved city-workers around accordingly. That's just nonsense as far as I'm concerned, 1 strategic error will hurt you more than an entire game of not micromanaged cities. Of course you have to be sensible about your buildings/improvements, I mean: the choice of wether to build first a library and then a forge. Or first the forge and THEN the library is more important than if you micromanaged the workers so you could build both in 1 turn less.
[If you catch my drift..]

I mean, maybe if you sold a tech one turn earlier you could have gotten twice the amount of gold for it, who knows? Things like that will impact the game...

One more thing, I don't mean in the beginning of the game, then every turn is micromanaged by me as well.


Damn, what a long story...

 

[UWHabs]

Hmmm, I'm feeling a bit closer to giving Emperor a whirl.

I usually play with technology brokering off in any case. I consider it pretty ridiculous.

Will try with Rome.

Can't imagine how to survive without slavery, though. What happens if you are attacked in the BCs and you have little or no miliary? In fact, units that were originally whipped into being often travel on into the centuries and become the core of a great army...

The key to doing well at Emperor is ensuring that you don't get attacked. At Monarch, you can still be a bit of a bully, and not really worry about going to war. But at Emp, if you can control it so that you never go into a war that you don't expect, you should win most of the time.

In BtS, the Monarch->Emperor jump is actually not all that big. It's not like the jumps to monarch (adjust to AI with archery) or to Immortal (extra workers). It's just a little bit tougher. I've won many emperor games where I've wonder-spammed, or missed the pyramids, or stayed in slavery the whole game or stayed away from slavery for virtually the whole game.

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

Well, I decided to try to move up to Emperor.

Thinking Rome would be my best bet, I thought I would play a monarch game on Rome, on Pangea, to brush up on Roman tactics, not having played them for a long time.

And promptly got my arse handed to me on a plate.

It was doubly humiliating because my starting plot was very good, with corn and gold!

After an initial burst of expansion everything went downhill. I turned up iron, and thinking praetorians were great i whipped a few and went on the attack. Bu (for me, at least) they turned our vastly overrated. They are beefed up swordsmen but don't quite get you there without catapults, at least not against entrenced axemen with melee promotions, which I faced continually. But waiting until construction seemed to miss the point somehow, when regular swordsmen are fine. So I perservered, and many many Romans died...

Eventually I took out most of my nearest neighbour, the Holy Romans. But the rash wars had cost me dearly, as my economy was in a shambles, with no GP farm or science city properly planned out. My targeted science city was just on the edge of holy roman territory and took ages to secure, by which time I was facing other threats.

Well eventually things started to come along okay. I was second in tech behind one of my neighbours, the Celts, who for some reason were way ahead. Turned out Brennus had scored a great starting city and also had the shrine for Judaism, the world dominant religion.

Thinking to expand my territory in preparation for the inevitable confrontation, I DOWed against the Chinese in the 1200s I made good progress, taking half their cities and targeting the other half for destruction. Then the Celts came in with impossible amounts of grenadiers, with massive hill promotions, cutting off my army in the conquered chinese cities and wiping out my GG, my elite knights and elite macemen! That really hurt. I lost all my chinese cities and half of what used to be Holy Rome before I got the 'wounded merciful soldier' or whatever it is and took the peace gladly. This was about 1300. I was shocked that they were so far ahead. I wanted to give up then but decided to fight on a bit.

So I work towards steel, figuring only massed cannons can tip the balance against large numbers. Impossibly quickly, Brennus vassalizes 3 civs in quick succession. I begin to think I am nearly up the stage when I can take him on again, when he attacks the Ductch, who are now number 2 in the ranking. I waited a couple of turns for some cannons to come on line, in the meantime feeding some techs to the dutch in the hope they can hold off the painted red haired barbarians for a few turns. I declare on Brennus, only to have the Dutch roll over the very next turn!

So then I have massive stacks from the Celts, Dutch and 3 other civs coming towards me. I hold back and wipe out a couple of huge stacks with cannons, and then move what I've got toward the celtic heartland. By this time it is my cav vs his rifles in the 1500s. I take one large city...two cities away is his capital. Meanwhile on my other border my cities are falling like dominoes and there is nothing I can do to hold back the 20 unit stack there, plus smaller stacks from his allies.

So I move on to the next city. On the same turn I reach it he takes the city I had just taken, and I lose my best defensive troops and another gg medic. Then i see the city I planned to attack...full of entrenched hill promoted rifles...and a machine gun.

That's when I give up.

Seems I have a lot to learn yet...

I have never seen an empire get so strong so quickly. I am still in shock

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

Admittedly I made some careless mistakes...not concentrating on the economy...not pulling back what troops I could when attacked in china and naively thinking i could take on grenadiers with outnumbered knights
I spent the first half of the game fantasizing about playing at Emperor, and the second half swearing I would never attempt such a thing.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Sounds like you didn't build enough praets for the first attack. If you roll over an AI quickly you shouldn't face too many axes. If you have horses sacrifice a few chariots to pillage the metals.

You only really need cats when you are facing longbows with praets.