notgoodwithcomp
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2
I'm having some strategy problems playing Civ:Rev.
I'm a veteran Civ player in general, having grown up with Civ 2 and been obsessed with Civ 4. I haven't played Civ:Rev that long. I feel like it was almost a negative for me to be so familiar with Civ 4 before starting to play Civ Rev.
I played my first time on the second difficulty level. By the time I won age I had 10+ of my own civ's cities, out of which 8 were in the top 10. All but a couple of the worlds wonders. I had armies of ninja tanks when my enemies still had knights. I was winning culture by 3 times the second place, and I had enough gold for the world bank.
I'm not saying this to draw praise, I know thats not special at all. Instead, I'm wondering what happens when I go to King. I have always played a very expansion oriented early game, focusing more on culture and economy and tech than domination. I build my capitol, get warriors to scout and kill almost all barbarians. Get some settlers and build a growth city and a trade city, just like everyone says. Each city has two armies of fortified archers. Good to go right?
Thats when everyone decides to ask me for my best tech and for my great people. Usually all four enemies within a turn or two. I don't want to give tech or over half of my gold away to just one enemy, so I refuse. Even times that I have given in, they ask again in a few turns. So then they send in a million legion armies and park them all around my cities, choking their resources, and keeping me from being able to move my settlers out to expand.
I feel like there must be some aspect of Civ:Rev that I'm missing, if I can win the second difficulty by an uncontested landslide, and I can't get to the mideval age without my cities being surrounded on all squares by 4 angry civs.
Am I expanding too far too quickly? Do I need more troops to deter war? Should I keep giving away my horsehocky?
I'm a veteran Civ player in general, having grown up with Civ 2 and been obsessed with Civ 4. I haven't played Civ:Rev that long. I feel like it was almost a negative for me to be so familiar with Civ 4 before starting to play Civ Rev.
I played my first time on the second difficulty level. By the time I won age I had 10+ of my own civ's cities, out of which 8 were in the top 10. All but a couple of the worlds wonders. I had armies of ninja tanks when my enemies still had knights. I was winning culture by 3 times the second place, and I had enough gold for the world bank.
I'm not saying this to draw praise, I know thats not special at all. Instead, I'm wondering what happens when I go to King. I have always played a very expansion oriented early game, focusing more on culture and economy and tech than domination. I build my capitol, get warriors to scout and kill almost all barbarians. Get some settlers and build a growth city and a trade city, just like everyone says. Each city has two armies of fortified archers. Good to go right?
Thats when everyone decides to ask me for my best tech and for my great people. Usually all four enemies within a turn or two. I don't want to give tech or over half of my gold away to just one enemy, so I refuse. Even times that I have given in, they ask again in a few turns. So then they send in a million legion armies and park them all around my cities, choking their resources, and keeping me from being able to move my settlers out to expand.
I feel like there must be some aspect of Civ:Rev that I'm missing, if I can win the second difficulty by an uncontested landslide, and I can't get to the mideval age without my cities being surrounded on all squares by 4 angry civs.
Am I expanding too far too quickly? Do I need more troops to deter war? Should I keep giving away my horsehocky?