Emperor Game Analysis Requested

[mercury529]

Hello,

I am rather new to Emperor (am yet to finish a game). I am looking for feedback about my current game as well as answers to a few questions I have. Any help you can give on any of the questions would be appreciated.

First the general questions (sorry if these have been extensively covered. I haven't really seen answers given the stipulations). All questions assume Standard speed/size, Pangea map, Emperor game with all other settings at Default. I tend to play with Financial or Philosophical rulers. I generally like to pair Financial/Philosophical with Spiritual or Charismatic.

1.) Who are generally considered to be the best leaders for Emperor games? In a similar vein, is there an "ideal" victory type for Emperor games?

2.) What is a reasonable time to reach victory in Emperor? I have read people that have stated they usually finish games before Industrialism. Is this to be expected in Emperor games?

3.) How many cities should be settled/conquered by each stage of the game? Obviously it will vary, but what are some general rules of thumb?

4.) Are there any rules of thumb about how frequently you should go to war?

5.) Are there any rules of thumb for tech trades? I know you should try to trade the same tech to all civs on the same turn if possible, but are there other suggestions? Is it beneficial to always trade tech to a pleased/friendly civ even if it advances them militarily?

----------------

As for my game (Save file here), I am curious how I am faring. I liked my starting position and thought I was doing decently. However it looks like I am starting to fall behind in the tech.

I just conquered Montezuma and got him to capitulate. The plan was to tech straight through to Industrialism for the Navy Seals to conquer my next target. I have 2 great scientists ready to lightbulb techs as needed (with a 81 gpp/turn for later ones).

6.) Is this a reasonable strategy?

7.) Does it appear I have made any big mistakes?

8.) Am I in a winning position or am I falling behind too quickly?

9.) Should I have more cities than I do now?

10.) Is my maintenance too high or does it appear reasonable?

Thank you again.

 

[Winston Hughes]

1.) Who are generally considered to be the best leaders for Emperor games?

This is personal preference, though some leaders are clearly harder to play than others. On Pangea, you won't go far wrong with Rome and her all-conquering Praets (unless you don't find Iron ).

In a similar vein, is there an "ideal" victory type for Emperor games?

No. Although, for obvious reasons, Pangea tends to make military victories much easier.

2.) What is a reasonable time to reach victory in Emperor?

Any time. A win is a win. Some victories are achievable earlier (Conquest can come very early on Pangea), but so long as you get there before the AI...

3.) How many cities should be settled/conquered by each stage of the game?

Depends on your style/strategy. As many as possible without killing your tech rate is one answer. Six before Liberalism is another. There are plenty of other possible approaches, but, whichever you choose, it needs to be part of a definite strategy.

4.) Are there any rules of thumb about how frequently you should go to war?

Well, there are wars and WARS. The former are against distant AIs, involve only minimal fighting and are conducted for diplomatic reasons or to disrupt an AI's progress. These should be fought whenever a suitable opportunity arises. The latter involve full-scale combat with a neighbour, and should be conducted only when you're ready to take their land for yourself.

5.) Are there any rules of thumb for tech trades? I know you should try to trade the same tech to all civs on the same turn if possible, but are there other suggestions? Is it beneficial to always trade tech to a pleased/friendly civ even if it advances them militarily?

Too complex to provide a reasonable answer. Carefully weigh up the pros and cons in each case is all I can suggest.

6.) Is this a reasonable strategy?

I think you'll need to go to war sooner. Certainly once you have Infantry. Get them asap - you only need four more techs (three of them relatively cheap), all of which are on the way to Industrialism anyway, and you'll get Infantry maybe 40 turns earlier than you'll get the Seals.

7.) Does it appear I have made any big mistakes?

I would say you should've expanded towards your rivals from the off, and gone to war to grab more land earlier than you did.

You could also stand to specialise your cities more thoroughly. Your GP farm and your main production city (the capital) each have a couple of cottages, which are not very helpful and may have led you to build stuff you really didn't need in those cities.

And I'm not sure why you left so many forests unchopped. The only thing I can think of is health, but this is rarely a good enough reason to miss out on so many mines, workshops, cottages and/or farms (not to mention the early hammer boosts from chopping). Lumbermills have their uses, but there are many better choices for most of the tiles you have them on.

8.) Am I in a winning position or am I falling behind too quickly?

It won't be easy, but this is still winnable if you stay focused. With any luck Shaka and Hannibal should cancel each other out somewhat, so strive to keep that war going at any cost short of letting the Zulu catch up in tech (that would be VERY bad news). That leaves you to deal with Bismarck. If you can beat him to Infantry by a decent margin (which you should), then I reckon he'll go down easy enough. From there, you should be able to get the win.

9.) Should I have more cities than I do now?

I would've looked to take Monty out early, and then moved on to Justinian in the mid-game (he has a ton of useful wonders in his capital). So, from my perspective, yes. But there's still plenty of time to build up a more substantial empire before the end-game.

10.) Is my maintenance too high or does it appear reasonable?

To me it appears very low, and there are two reasons for this. Firstly, as mentioned above, I would've had a larger empire by now (or died trying to get one). Secondly, I would've been using the civic options available to me - Mercantilism and Free Religion might increase civic costs a little, but they'll increase your research by a lot more. And let's face it, you've got plenty of cash right now - what you need is beakers.

 

[MrCynical]

1)Financial and Philosophical are the obvious candidates. Charismatic and Creative are quite strong too, though not up to the calibre of Fin or Phi. Industrious is one trait which becomes clearly weaker at the higher levels.

2)It depends what victory condition you go for - you're not going to win space race pre-industrialism. It's common enough to win domination that early (Rifling is often the last killer tech, if not then Assembly Line).

3)&4) Really depend on too much for any meaningful comment. Map size? Game speed?

5)It's generally best to trade a tech to multiple civs when profitable, rather than spreading out the trades to avoid the AI tech brokering it, but I wouldn't just give it away, or sell it for an irrelevant sum of gold. The AI doesn't broker techs that much. How much a civ likes you is only relevant to whether you are allowed to trade with them, not whether you should. I wouldn't do a friendly or pleased civ any favours there.

Generally if you can trade for a tech, and it isn't absolutely useless to you, then go for it. Don't be afraid to sell tech to hopelessly backward civs for lump sums of gold. Don't hang on to monopoly techs like the AI - instead beeline to a monopoly tech and sell it for several others.

 

[mercury529]

Thank you both for your replies. With the tech trade question, I was mainly just interested on whether it is necessary to trade techs frequently to compete on Emperor and above. I have an aversion to trading techs away unless I am in dire need of a prereq.

Winston: I think I struggle a little with the SE Economy and what is a suitable science/gold rate. I built cottages primarily to have a source of income when I needed it. However, I think I need to focus on taking advantage of caste system more when I am running an SE (especially with the Pyramids) and running merchants when I need cash. Would you agree?

I also think that I am kind of averse to building too many cities. To counteract this, I started a game with Darius running a CE. I can build a lot more cities and am seeing how potent that can be (though my experience is helped by the fact that I captured 3 holy cities with shrines, including the AP religion). It looks like it will be my first emperor win and it is helping to show me how important early city expansion can be.

Cynical: I am using normal speed and standard map size. Thank you for your other responses.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I was mainly just interested on whether it is necessary to trade techs frequently to compete on Emperor and above.

It'll be very difficult if you don't, since the AI civs will happily trade with each other. MrCynical's advice is spot on.

I think I struggle a little with the SE Economy and what is a suitable science/gold rate. I built cottages primarily to have a source of income when I needed it.

I may be wrong here, but I think you're confusing specialising your cities with running a specialist economy. The first is important whatever your gameplan, while the latter is a particular economic strategy.

You're already specialising your cities to some extent - I guess just by deciding the optimal use of the tiles you have around each city. But a clear division into Commerce Cities, Production/Military Cities and Specialist Cities will help you to build stronger empires.

Obviously, to be effective, all cities need a minimum level of food and production, and a few key buildings (usually a Granary, a Courthouse, and some source of culture). But beyond that you should choose a purpose for each city and concentrate (almost) exclusively on the buildings and terrain improvements which suit that purpose. This will allow you to maximise the output of whatever it is you want from the city in question.

When it comes to SE/CE/whatever, it's a matter of the empire-wide balance between different city types, and the choices you make to get the best results from that balance (civics, wonders, tech paths, etc.).

However, I think I need to focus on taking advantage of caste system more when I am running an SE (especially with the Pyramids) and running merchants when I need cash. Would you agree?

Aye, Caste System is very helpful for an SE.

But so is Slavery - with the quick regrowth rate of your heavily farmed cities, the whip can be extremely powerful, getting units and infrastructure built in a timely fashion. This means you have to make some tough calls on when to waste turns in anarchy switching between them (unless you're Spiritual - the best trait for an SE, imo).

You're right about the Merchants too - these guys have kept my economy out of the sink more times than I care to remember.

If you really want to expand/war like a maniac (which I usually do with an SE), then running them everywhere can prop you up when otherwise you'd suffer a Strike. With Caste System you don't need buildings or (many) improvements to make a city self-funding - all you need is enough food to run a couple of Merchants. Best of all, if you're running Representation too, you'll still get a reasonable amount of research, shortening the inevitable periods of playing catch-up as you repair your economy after expanding.

I also think that I am kind of averse to building too many cities.

That's something you're wise to address. You certainly don't have to build a huge empire asap (check out obsolete's games for a 'start small' approach on higher difficulties), but it's very useful to know how to do so when the situation demands it.