Help me graduate to Regent!

[Legal_My_Deagle]

I basically need help with everything, any tips would be good. If you dont feel like reading what has turned out to be a longer post than I meant to make, just skip down to where I made a line like this:

---------

After reading this forum and doing some reflecting, I have come to the realization that I am a complete noob at this game. =[

I would like to think that it isnt that I am unintelligent, but that my play style has made me lose interest in the game more quickly before I could learn something, and also that it has kept me from learning how to properly manage my empire. Then again, maybe I am just kidding myself But hey, at least I am not afraid to ask a lot of stupid questions!

I read this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=71238

(for the record, I play Conquests)

And I also realized that I have had this game and played off and on basically since it came out and I played Civ2 a lot before that. I just had no idea that so many people actually managed to SURVIVE higher than Warlord, thats how big of a new I was, and I am not much better now.

I started reading this forum a bit more lately, not just for war strategies. I came to realize that I apparently emphasize wonders too much, and I build very slowely in the begining of the game, not to mention I have not much idea how to better myself.

Since I started up Civ3 again, I am usually easily winning Warlord difficulty now, though far too many games I win by Histograph. However, I at least have quit the "There is one best Civ" mindset. I also used to NEVER build air units, and only build a couple naval units. Ewww. Also, I have gotten out of the habit of bee-lining towards all the ancient wonders, though I still usually try to build them all but I at least prioritize the ones most important for whatever civ and strategy I am trying.

----------------------------- (Those who dont want to read very much, jump in here!) Sorry so long!

So my WORST area right now? Building. When I start the game, I hit "b" on my settler and "a" on my Worker to automate him. I have no idea how to manage workers myself, and had no idea people actually bothered to do this until I was reading another thread where a guy was having problems starting off. Somebody told him to irrigate the tiles around his capital or something so it would grow faster and pump settlers better. This sounds reasonable, though I think I need some advice on how to better start off and manage my workers.

I also dont have much of a clue as to what constitutes a good spot to build a city on. I know that it is good to build on rivers, and not in deserts or tundra, but thats about it. Some of my cities always end up being totally worthless and I regret building them. I play on Standard maps usually because it gets really tedious when it comes time to upgrade all of my units when a new tech arrives...even on a standard map, I usually have 70+ guys to manually upgrade...UGH. Is there a better way? Anyway back on subject...How far apart/close should my cities be? What are good locations to build them at? I am always afraid I am building too close together and that the two cities will "fight" over rights to mine a common square and wont be very efficient...

My strongest point? Probably actually using my units in land wars. I try to move them in stacks with a defensive unit to defend, I try to pillage/bombard roads on resource squares to deny these to my opponent. Though, I am not sure if it is how the game works or just me, but I always have problems trying to take over a big city before I take the surrounding ones first. Also, how many defensive units should I have defending each city? I am not sure what is most cost-efficient.

I also have questions regarding how I should be handling my money and assetts. Should I be planning to eventually build all the improvements for all my cities? What is a good % to have my science slider bar at? I forgot I even HAD a luxury slider until I read a thread a minute ago, should I be messing with that? How much money SHOULD I be making a turn, anyway?

Anyhow, I will probably cut this post off here for fear that nobody will bother reading it if it gets much bigger. Any advice you guys can give me that will help me improve my game would be awesome. Thanks =]

 

[playshogi]

Read this article. It talks about winning on deity, but the principles work on any level.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=135739

 

[homeyg]

And I also realized that I have had this game and played off and on basically since it came out and I played Civ2 a lot before that. I just had no idea that so many people actually managed to SURVIVE higher than Warlord, thats how big of a new I was, and I am not much better now.

First off, tons of people play at levels even higher than Emperor (which is the last level I've won multiple games on).

I started reading this forum a bit more lately, not just for war strategies. I came to realize that I apparently emphasize wonders too much, and I build very slowely in the begining of the game, not to mention I have not much idea how to better myself.

In games I play I usually never build any wonders except possibly Theory of Evolution (if I can even snatch it before one of the AIs build it), but that's it. In the early game (ancient age) you should be focusing on building setters/workers/units and that's it. Also, you shouldn't focus on city improvements until you've expanded as far as you possibly can (no open areas where cities can be built).

I play on Standard maps usually because it gets really tedious when it comes time to upgrade all of my units when a new tech arrives...even on a standard map, I usually have 70+ guys to manually upgrade...UGH.

Oh I remember when it was so aggravating to upgrade my 100s of rifleman to infantry until I learned this shortcut: shift+U.

I also have questions regarding how I should be handling my money and assetts. Should I be planning to eventually build all the improvements for all my cities?

NO. Do not build every improvement in every city - this costs way too much in the way of maintainence. These are the only buildings I build in my cities early on (I find this is the most productive for the little maintainence it costs): barracks, courthouse, library, marketplace, university, bank, harbor (if needed), aqueduct (if needed). Remember that this is just early on, not for the whole game. Try it and you may find yourself playing better.

 

[vmxa]

Read Crackers thread on OPENING MOVES. It is topped, probably in the War Academy.

What it boils down to is evaluating tiles. So its 4000BC, if you have a settler and a worker only (no scout), what can you see? If you see a bonus tile such as a cow and it has a river next to it and it is adjacent to your worker, go ahead and move the worker to that tile.

The idea is that you will want to improve that tile first. You will gain sight of some more tiles and may see a reason to move the settler or a reason to stay put. If you have a scout move it before deciding to settle.

Most of the time it is best to irrigate the cow and get the food bonus to grow faster. I will not worry about the special cases when it is not the way to go as that is for a time when you have mastered empire managment.

Now as you have seen, we do not automate workers, ever. Again there are some exceptions, but why worry about it. When you get to that point you will figure it out on your own. This is more a rule of thumb deal.

We need to save worker turns and maximize it use. This means not sending it to tiles that can wait such as mountians and hills. Not having it go to a tile and cross it several times. Not crossing rivers over and over and so on.

But we also want to have it improve the best tiles first, we just try to avoid wasted movement as much as we can.

 

[vmxa]

I broke this up so as to not lose my place and not lose a bunch of typing (it is late here).

So as to a good place to land. Most of the time it is not worth moving a settler. In a few cases it can make sense, but try to make it no more than two turns. I have seen a few cases where it was wise to move up to 11 turns, but I never have.

So if you have lots of grass at the start you should be fine. Considerations of things like times when you have several bonus tiles in sight and can plan for two 4 turn settler pumps. Or you are playing a Always War and can move to a hill. Times when you could move to allow sharing of a cow. I thing those things can be ignored for now.

If you can see that moving one tile will put you next to a river and not lose much in productive tiles, then do it. Sometimes you can see that a CxxC for two town on one river could be done by moving, that makes sense.

Reason is that you save the cost of an Aqua and do not have to wait for the tech to grow to size 12 or at least above size 6.

As to corrupt towns, that cannot be avoided completely, unless you stick to a small number of cities (5CC maybe). Corrupt town can be your friend. Get them max food and have them use specialist to put beakers or gold into the empire. Having those towns helps support for those governments that have it.

70 units, oh my how do you manage so much work? I often have hundreds of units and scores of armies. You need them to fight off many hundreds and even at times 2 thousand troops.

Anyway there is a function key to mass upgrade units, if you have the cash and barracks. Try having to do it one by one to avoid upgrading elites.

 

[vmxa]

City placement is an oft argue issue. For game below Emperor, it probably does not matter. Below Monarch for sure you can use any that suits you.

I prefer CxxC for all but the toughest games. Say a smallish island at Deity, I would go even tighter. AW could force me to tighen up on some maps as well.

I would go CxxC and not wrry about overlapping tiles. First you will not need more than 12 tiles for most, if not all of the game. Second if I did have a few metros, I would steal tiles from other cities and do it until I got to the point that it make no sense. So that is only going to be a handful of core cities and maybe only the capitol and one core city.

By the time you have rails, you can irrigate a few tiles to get by with mines on the rest and manage 24 food for all but the crappiest land. Why would you have core cities on crappy land anyway, you wouldn't.

The CxxC allows you to cover for defense with fewer units. It means workers do not have lots of useless tiles to cross and road. It means less distance corruption for those core cities. It means more towns on the same amount of land.

Your strongest point may be a weak point. Depends on a number of things. At levels like Warlord and Regent, you do not need defenders in the first age and probably not at all. In fact I rarely make them until I am under pressure.

The correct number of defenders per city is zero for governments that have no MP affects. Well at least for cities not directly exposed to attacks. Those that care exposed, need as many as it takes.

Looking at early AA, you get a settler and a warrior near your warrior or horse. Yours are vets, theirs are regs or maybe even a conscript. So you take it down and grab the slaves.

You are at war, but you have 3 towns and the Ai has two. It starts sending units. Maybe a warrior at first. Then maybe a spear or even an archer. If you are on the first few levels, it will not send large numbers and they will be hit and miss. So no sweat and you get a chance to get an elite and maybe a leader.

Once they start sending them in earnest, you can probably get peace, if you have had enough or keep fishing.

You do not need much for defense. Later you have a large empire and you have more than one civs near you. Now you may have to have some units in those border towns. Guess what, offensive units will work just as well in most cases.

When you go on the attack, it is best at those levels to use attackers, especially if you have fast movers. I would rather send 6 horses and keep more heading to the front than wait for spears to come along.

I am not fond of pillaging early in the game as I want that land and its improvements. In tough games pillaging may be needed to slow them down.

Taking big cities, does that mean cities (7-12 pop) or metros (more than 12)?
If metros, they will always be tough as the defensive bonus will hurt. They will have better units as Hospitals are later in the game, so you will be facing rifles or infantry or worse.

This need to either hit with armies that can take on those units or bombarded down to size. The only thing gained from taking nearby towns is that you tend to reduce their support. You could reduce the place via starving sometimes. but that is not normally my style.

If you are talking about early and cities, then you still get a bonus for defense, but the types of defenders varies and how many. None theless, the tactics can be the same. If you have superior units, you can often get a fight that has you using calvs Vs units like MDI or Knights or Muskets.

Those are not bad odds, if the city is not on a hill, not facing a river and does not have bombardment support.

My feeling on money is that it is best spent. I have to see games posted where they have a lot of cash, but are not doing well in research or land or troops. Do not hoard it just to be hoarding it. If you are doing so well that you just have no use for it, then great. Otherwise increase you spending, either on research, luxs or troops.

Always evaluate any structure to se if it is cost effective to have it. Maybe it is not need right now or never. A size 2 town that will not be able to go beyond 6, does not need structures. Maybe a harbor in some cases, but usually not.

A town that is 100% corrupt does not need most structures. If the place will not be able to do more than 1 gold, it does notneed a bank. 1 beaker, no lib (unless you need to get a border expansion andyou should not).

Anyway I am starting to get sleepy so I hope when I read this tomorrow it makes sense.

 

[guspasho]

Upgrading units, you can select a unit and hit ctrl+u or shift+u, (I forget which, but the game should tell you when you hover your cursor over the upgrade button) and, provided you have the cash required, you will automatically upgrade all the units that:
a) are of the same type (ie riflemen)
b) are in a city with a barracks (or harbor for naval units)
c) are in a city that is connected to the required resource for the upgraded unit type (ie rubber) via road, rail, harbor, or airport
d) haven't depleted all their movement points (I'm not sure about this one)

So if you want to save some elite units, or you don't have enough cash, you can pull those units out of the city and then upgrade.

 

[IglooDame]

At least up through Monarch (which I'm usually winning by conquest, nowadays) I put one defensive unit in each city to start out, and then as I expand if my core cities are #1 happy enough and #2 not on a border with another civ or within a tile of the ocean, I leave them empty. On borders with civs that are powerful, aggressive, or annoying, I'll occasionally put in a second unit.

Personally, I generally have libraries, barracks, and marketplaces in most of my cities (particularly core ones). Universities in the core, as well. Beyond that, only build improvements if a city needs one for some reason (aqueducts or harbors, for example).

Never put workers on auto.

 

[Bartleby]

If you want a soundbite that'll improve your game, I would suggest:

"Build more workers."

 

[McLMan]

Read Crackers thread on OPENING MOVES. It is topped, probably in the War Academy.

I can't stress how much Cracker's article helped me improve. HERE is a link to it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The first article in the War Academy has helped my game a lot. I had to re-read it a few times to fully understand all the concepts and it took me a few tries to get it right. I started a game today as Persia on Regent with all the standard settings except I put the Barbs to Stationary. Early expansion and getting to the resources is the primary key to winning the game. It's also important to link up your cities and make a trade route to the nearest opponent's capital. The only other civ on the same continent is Babylon. So far I've been beating them in every fight using mainly Immortals and Catapults. They are down to only 5 cities and their capital is toast. The other civs haven't made contact yet but from looking the demographics I'm in the lead.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/deity_settlers1.php