earth 18civ tutorial

[tim hicks]

thanks for the replies everyone, I'm currently having Great Fun with Earth18, and the ideas for adding new Civ's to restrict the space for REX are interesting. I guess that I should try out Earth 32 also. I'm currently on the way to a victory with Cyrus on Monarch level (having lost on Emperor), I'm undisputed No1, and it would now be almost impossible to lose, but still only have about 20% of the land area. I've no chance for a cultural victory (not having planned for it), but I'm terrified of the amount of time I'll have to put into the game, to get a domination victory on this map. I've heard that para's and bombers are the way to a quick domination. It's now 1860 , and I've just researched flight, rather than slog thru Europe with my SOD's, would people recommend that I wait until I have more speedy troops ?

 

[i_imperator]

You can use nukes and para's also, nuke the city attack with infantry and/or tanks then drop para's into it.

 

[Mannerhe1m]

Is this map easier with let say Rome if you turn raging barbarians on?
This way the AI wont expand so much and you are kinda safe in the europe.

I just played a deity game as Rome and in the beginning like half of the AI civilizations were dead. I had raging barbs on so did this have some effect on the dieying AIs?

 

[Spectrite]

Is this map easier with let say Rome if you turn raging barbarians on?
This way the AI wont expand so much and you are kinda safe in the europe.

I just played a deity game as Rome and in the beginning like half of the AI civilizations were dead. I had raging barbs on so did this have some effect on the dieying AIs?

Yes, the barbs probably killed the AIs, who don't start with Archery since it's a scenario.

But I don't know if it'll make it easier for Rome, since with Rome, the best course of action is to start taking land with Praets. So at first you'll be safe from barbs, but once you expand, the barbs will threaten you too.

 

[Mannerhe1m]

Yes, the barbs probably killed the AIs, who don't start with Archery since it's a scenario.

But I don't know if it'll make it easier for Rome, since with Rome, the best course of action is to start taking land with Praets. So at first you'll be safe from barbs, but once you expand, the barbs will threaten you too.

Actually i mean that the map is easier if more of the AIs survive longer. So even thought there will be more vassals none of the AIs wont be extremely big.

For example in my game China ja Mongolia were killed in some way and that's why persia and india have almost the whole Asia.

This problem only occurs on deity ofcourse, on easier settings it should be doable even if one AI has the whole Asia.

 

[r_rolo1]

That is diferent in Europe. As the civs in Europe are quite packed until Berlin, taking everything there will not leave much of space for other civs to get big, as long as you leave Russia to counter Persia expansion to Siberia.

 

[Mannerhe1m]

Playing as Rome the map seems a little easier as normal barbarians. Atm controlling europe and middle east at 0AD mark and vassalaged rest of the russia and greece (caucasus). Persia still has cities all the way to China thou.

I hope this is going to be my first deity win domination win (18 players)

 

[JoeHollywood]

Here's the bump for the england player I was talking to.

 

[Mainvity]

I'd have to thank this for what is happening. I finished reading and then stared a earth 18 cis map as rome. By 200 ad i had France, Spain, England and most of Germany. Now i have half of greece(vassal state) and am currentally trying to take over Egypt.

I am playing on noble, only because, well...i suck at civ 4 XD
also i only have warlords

 

[Mosher]

I'm stumped, playing the Persians (singleplayer). I usually warrior rush India, with 3-4 warriors and then create an army of immortals and kill Arabia within 2 wars (less if I devoted time into siege weapons, but I usually rush them so they don't become powerful), but then I find it impossible to start expanding into Greece and Egypt. North of me is desert and the Himalayas (worthless terrain) and I usually just build one city up there as a buffer against the Russians. But by the time I border Greece and Egypt they have super garrisons (6+ archers and 3-5 swords w/ walls).
What am I doing wrong?

 

[whats a navy]

If you have all of India, Persia, and Mesopotamia I think you don't really need any more land. There are loads of resources you can use. If you really want Egypt and Europe you can take it with cannons and rifles.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I'd have to thank this for what is happening. I finished reading and then stared a earth 18 cis map as rome. By 200 ad i had France, Spain, England and most of Germany. Now i have half of greece(vassal state) and am currentally trying to take over Egypt.

I am playing on noble, only because, well...i suck at civ 4 XD
also i only have warlords

Welcome to the forums!

Sorry to say, this is kind of a slow start. By the time I finish my initial expansion as Rome, I'm wondering about India. Keep the Prats coming! I slave rush, and everything to get the invasion going ASAP an don't let up.

 

[Re-loader]

You know, america has vexed me for years on this map. There's a lot of viable stratagies but that hasn't stopped me from looking for the most consistant and best one.

My current thoughts are this, and they're subject to change.

Now this is assuming an AI monte, I'll follow with a human monte after that.

Axe > Jag, so that makes an early attack look tasty.

Axe/Sword < Archer on hill, in fortified city, so that means you have a VERY short window and have to be a production haus to pull this off.

Early game...Catapult > Anything non horse/elephant.

So my current leaning is settler spam to place cities at start, New Orleans, Nova Scotiaish ( New York ), a couple up the mississippi, and working into the mid/north west.

Cottage spam like crazy, and tech rush to construction.

Then use slavery like you've never used slavery before and have a 25%ish axe/sword....75%ish catapult army, and just roll over aztec as best as possible

Then start working naval/sea tech and work your way down eastern south america.

Then just prepare for/execute a 3 to 4 point of attack landing on europe/africa, being careful not to run into UU's

Redcoats/Cossacks/Panzers come to mind.

Now as for human america vs human aztec, I think you need archery as your lynchpin and just play a choking war of attrition and try to fortify/choke archers/axes as best you can and then repeat as above with cats.

I'm trying to crack Roosevelt, but only on Warlord level.

It might be obvious to some, but there is limited sources of Iron/Copper on the North American continent. So securing those and having Axemen would make a lot of sense.

However, in my current game as Roosevelt, Montezuma has somehow acquired a source of metal for Axemen.

I have failed my early rush.

From looking at Neal's game as Montezuma, I noticed that the AI had placed its 2nd city inland westwards, amongst the Corn resources. This is usually my 3rd or 4th city at the earliest. It always becomes a high production city, so in future I will make it my 2nd city.

 

[JoeHollywood]

I played an E18 for grins the other day on settler difficulty just for fun.

As rome, I won a conquest victory in 1000BC...

Used oracle to pop astronomy...

Fun stuff!

 

[Harv]

1) As soon as the evil computer mongers finish with my pc...my "off" time will be devoted mostly to thrashing all of you in earth games...grin

Necro.

Get your computer back yet?