Higher difficulty levels- perfect game or start over?

[six50joe]

I'd been playing CIV4 the past few months on the Noble level and below, and am able to get a victory at these levels, though not by a landslide. I find that at any level higher than this, mistakes made due to sloppy play without planning- or simply not understanding the strategic time to choose certain techs, units, resources, etc. will lead to failure early in the game.

I feel like I'm playing the game the "wrong" way; here's a typical example:

1. Start a new game, focus on growth, or beating other civs to a key strategic tech earlier in the game.
2. I acheive this early goal, have grown well, only to find out that another civ decides to declare war on me unexpectedly and takes one of my key cities.
3. Oops! I rewind time 3-5 turns by loading a saved game to anticipate and avert the conflict- not to cheat, but in hopes that I will learn how to become a better player by avoiding mistakes.
4. I avert the problem, only to find that I did not anticipate another one.
5. Repeat 3-4 a seemingly infinite number of times during one game.

In this example, the mistake was leaving a city poorly defended. In another, it could be not identifying the best ally, or picking the right techs, etc.

-so I'm asking advice not for a specific strategy, but rather the best approach to improving my play.

As far as I can tell, there are three approaches:

1. The endless cycle of reloading saved games that I've been doing.
2. Continuing the game despite my blunders knowing I have no chance to win, and can only play for a score when the game ends. I'd imagine this trains one best for multiplayer games.
3. Start over with with a completely new game. (Most games I wouldn't even make it to the Industrial era before starting over).

I realize this is a general question, but I'm looking for a general answer. For those of you that have regular success at the higher difficulties, what was your approach?

Thanks much,
Joe

 

[Speedy36]

I watched the games that other people posted on the forums.

Most of the authors of those games give a play by play overview of what they did in those game.

Once I understood what they did and why they did what they did in their games, I played better in my own.

However, keep in mind that the authors make their games seem so easy.

 

[Bruce Leee]

I will say that I do reload when I know I have made a stupid mistake, but I do limit myself to 10 reloads per game. I even name the saves so I can keep track. This allows me to back track but I still get to make a choice instead of going back in time.

For instance, If my 2nd city Settler gets eaten by a lion because I didn't want to wait for a war to escort him... I might want to use a Reload on that to save the 30 turns or the chop but I won't reload just because I lost a great General on a 95% success battle because I'm feel I have been cheated by the computer.

I'm sure others will still say I'm cheating but it is a game, and I do like making my own little strategy from the option of reloading.

 

[Belisar]

First, welcome to the forum.
Civ is a complex game and there is a reason why it is called "higher difficult levels"
The AI gets certain bonus, increasing every level and your play has to compensate for those bonus.
There are 2 ways to get better: learning from others and learning from your own (which means experience from many games)

For the former, I would suggest reading several walkthroughs (for example by Sullla in the strategy article forum) or some succession games
to get a feeling how good players expand, build up..., balancing the needs of their civ.
Most of the game is about balancing (expansion, city placement, tech, military, infrastructure, tile improvement...)
For example you beeing attacked early is likely the fact that you neglected your military which is a mistake often
made by players stepping up the difficult levels (the AI has more units on higher levels, their power rating is higher and they are
therefore more likely to attack you)

The later is self-explanatory.

 

[Spaced out]

The 1 problem i see is that when you rewind 3-5 turns to fix something thats comming soon you don't solve the problem.

Like when the A.I. DoW on you. He takes a city. So you rewind 5 turns, whip some troops and avoid loosing the city. In reality the A.I. decided to declare war on you some 30 turns ago.

The game may seem lost because instead of being way ahead of the A.I. your right next to them. When your first the only thing between you and the finish line is time. When your in second place you have to watch the 1st place guy 1 step ahead of you the whole time. The question now becomes can you move 2 steps more than him between now and the end to get in first?

By just rewinding your like the rabbit racing the turtle. You may beat them to finishing the mids by rushing but your not any better at building them. Lost by 3 turns? Then you need to start them 3 turns earlier (thats can be like 40 turns prior). Who wants to replay that much of the same game?

My advice to you is to make descisions earlier and do a bit more planning. Learn to sacrafice. You can't have all the wonders and the largest army anymore.

 

[Trains]

I played Nobel for a long time before I made the step up. I play on two above Nobel now (monarch I think, but can't think of it right now).

While victory isn't a guarantee for me on every game I play, I don't experience the same problems as you described above.

Here are a couple of things I do early game no matter what. I am not saying that my way is the best way, but it works for me.

Start of the game:
1. Decide which resources I need/and which can wait and then hook them up. seems like a given, but sometimes it wiser to mine a hill to work instead of farming the corn you don't need for another 10 turns.

2. I research hunting early (unless I have it) because I think scouts rule until the barb animals disappear. Plus Hunting is on the way to Archery, which at this difficultly I consider a must. I usually make about 2-3 scouts to let the city grow, and while I work some tiles and research some techs. They fight off the animals that threaten my second settler and help me meet neighbors fast so I can get an idea of where my defenses need to be.

3. call it over-kill, but my first 4-5 cities always have at least 3 archers in them that I make from my barracks city so they have garrison1 promotion. This keeps the AI from getting hungry, as it's tough to fight those buggers without siege. Secondly, once I make the hereditary rule switch this give me an instant +3 happiness boost (like representation) in those 4-5 cities, and since I know I am not going to move those archers out of those cities I don't have to worry about managing the happiness.

4. Build some walls. Why not? They are cheap as hell and great until gunpowder comes about.

I find that by keeping 3 archers/longbowmen in my cities at all times, and building some walls, the AI rarely declares war on me (unless I really make them mad). Just remember, even peaceful leaders need to protect themselves.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Spaced out has it right imo.

I'd add that playing on after you make a mistake, and learning how to compensate for it (rather simply undoing it by reloading), is usually the best course. That way you'll learn to be wary of making the mistake again, and become more adept at dealing with your mistakes in future.

One exception would be if you're testing out a new strategy and miss something crucial - if the whole purpose of your game is to try out a Pyramids-powered SE, but you miss the 'Mids by a turn because you forgot to rearrange your tiles, then reloading is the better option.

 

[johnny_rico]

I'm going to side with the group that says play through your mistakes. Using the reload becomes a crutch and does not make one a better player. In fact, there is really nothing to be learned by rigging a few turns to get a favorable outcome on one small thing.

I was there once and thought the same thing. But, eventually, you realize every game will have its share of mistakes, some big, some small. The way you become a better player is by overcoming those mistakes. When a game seems completely lost, it is amazing how much you can learn by fighting on. Sometimes you'll amaze yourself at how far you've crept back from the depths. Recovery from mistakes is the learning process, there is no perfect game of civ and if there was, why play?

To help along in your game, I'd advise taking notes. I do, every game, because I don't really get the opportunity to sit down and play for more than 90 minutes at a time. The notes are key, and as a result I make far fewer mistakes.

Happy Hunting.

 

[six50joe]

Thanks for all the great advice. It seems so far that on levels above noble, it in a way becomes a whole different game because trying to be a tech leader or building wonders can be futile in light of the handicap the AI players have. Rather, it seems that to succeed you need to pay much closer attention to diplomacy and your relationship with other civs.

Last night I pushed ahead on my Prince level game. All my cities and cultural border are isolated on one continent, so it's essentially an "island" nation. Thinking I could use this to my advantage, I pretty much went without any military at all until mid way through the classical era. While this strategy has worked so far (I've devoted all resources to techs and commerce), my civ ranking is still "pathetic"- I've been dead last in the race the whole game; the top two civs have more than double my score. Two civs just declared war on me, but my cities are now adequately defended. I don't see how I can catch up this game, especially given that all other civs out tech me and out arm me, but hopefully I'll have learned somtheing by the end of the game.

 

[shyuhe]

Reloading really only works if you have save games from much earlier. I used to make systematic saves every 500 years or so (in the AD years) and I would save before I start a war. That way, if things went bad, I could go load up a previous game and try a different strategy.

If you're trying a new level, I think reloading is a better way to learn (because you can try alternative strategies) than forcing yourself through mistakes. Although it depends on the magnitude of the mistake too...

 

[noto]

First of all, I don't reload because it ruins the fun for me. Part of the fun in Civ is actually being prepared for something like an unexpected declaration of war, or losing one of your cities in a sneak attack and then being able to fight and get it back. Whenever I play single player I pretend I'm in multiplayer. There is no reload. I only save a game and load it when I have to stop playing (to go to school or whatever). But that's just me.
However, I will say that constant reloading probably won't make you a better player. If you have to do that, maybe you should go one difficulty level down. Don't rise up to the next level when you get your first win. So you won with Rome on noble? Great. Now try winning with Elizabeth, now the ottomans, now the...etc. Try winning by culture, space, conquest, etc, with many different leaders. If you can do that, then maybe you're ready for a higher difficulty level. Reloading just doesn't work though. Imagine playing a game of chess, and then you lose your queen, so you rewind by 4 turns and do it differently. And then you keep doing that all game. Would you become a better chess player? Absolutely not. If you keep losing the game because of things like getting surprise attacked and dying (and i can sympathize on this one, that used to happen to me a lot) then it means you aren't taking your military seriously enough. You need to actually prepare for war and be ready - that means having enough units to repel an attack. It also means paying more attention to diplomacy and the signs of aggression. It also means learning which leaders are nutcases (monty) or just plain dishonest (catherine). That's part of the fun - not knowing what will happen, but knowing you will be able to deal with it when it does. That, my friend, is called leadership.

 

[The Rook]

As far as I can tell, there are three approaches:

1. The endless cycle of reloading saved games that I've been doing.
2. Continuing the game despite my blunders knowing I have no chance to win, and can only play for a score when the game ends. I'd imagine this trains one best for multiplayer games.
3. Start over with with a completely new game. (Most games I wouldn't even make it to the Industrial era before starting over).

Definitely not 1, this is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, so to speak. Rolling back a few turns isn't going to undo the strategic mistakes you made 50 turns earlier. Number 2 could teach some valuable lessons, and would be very fulfilling if you managed to turn the game around, although you may need to be some kind of masochist if the position is futile. Nothing wrong with 3, so long as you have a clear idea of what you did wrong, and a plan to avert it. If you are constantly needing to start over though, it might be worth rolling back a difficulty level. Once you can beat a level with ease (without cheating! ), the next level should be a challenge, but not beyond you.

 

[MyOtherName]

Number 2 could teach some valuable lessons, and would be very fulfilling if you managed to turn the game around, although you may need to be some kind of masochist if the position is futile.

But -- it's easy to think a position is "futile" when, in reality, you are perfectly capable of turning it into a win. Without the experience of playing it out, you can't really accurately judge which positions you cannot win!

But even if the position is futile, you can learn some important lessons. e.g. learning how to play catch-up from a position of being behind in tech may seem pointless if you cannot win this game... but in the next game where you have three times as much territory but are behind, playing that exact same game of catch-up could turn into a win!

 

[The Rook]

But -- it's easy to think a position is "futile" when, in reality, you are perfectly capable of turning it into a win. Without the experience of playing it out, you can't really accurately judge which positions you cannot win!

Good point. I suppose if anything, I have probably been guilty of prematurely restarting. Sometimes I've played on in positions I considered absolutely hopeless, only to go on winning easily (no AI victory in sight). Makes me think back to those games I abandoned as a lost cause, maybe they weren't so lost after all?

But even if the position is futile, you can learn some important lessons. e.g. learning how to play catch-up from a position of being behind in tech may seem pointless if you cannot win this game... but in the next game where you have three times as much territory but are behind, playing that exact same game of catch-up could turn into a win!

Sometimes a healthy tech position isn't even essential for a win, with cultural and diplomatic victory conditions. In one game I was stranded on an island, I was so far behind the AI I didn't manage a single tech trade (didn't help that 3 of my rivals were financial ). By the time I had discovered Alphabet, they had Rifling, but the game turned out to be winnable. Not always essential to win the Liberalism race, if you are only teching a couple of techs past Liberalism.

 

[futurehermit]

I restart many winnable games. I'm a bit of a perfectionist. Plus I love the earlier eras more than the later eras.

But the most satisfying wins were the ones that came after struggling earlier on.

 

[six50joe]

Another update after playing with advice taken to heart, how I've learned from it (if this is of any interest to anyone):

Still in the same "island" nation game. At the time of my last update, my civ was in last place. Bismarck declared war on me, but I was able to hold my own; he was mostly just an annoyance with his frigates off my coast. I used a scientist to speed up Statue Of Liberty production, and finished it. I suddenly felt like I had a leg up. Soon after, the stronger Isabella decided to invade. She took a city, I took it back. while that was going on, Montezuma declared war, and came at me with more force. I remained at war (from 1600s up until the late 1900s).

During the entire period of war:
1. I wasn't able to broker a peace treaty with any civ without having to give up something major (and I didn't until the the late 1900s).
2. Despite some ridiculously "unfair" battles, like losing unit after unit to Montezuma with (having greater than 50% odds) trying to take back a city, I can proudly say I never reloaded the whole time- even though I could surely have drastically altered the outcome.

At this point I have zero chance to win, having given up two of my largest cities, and being way behind in the tech race. I can only compete for a distant second-to-last place.

However, to the credit of those who advised that I play through mistakes, here's what I've learned:

1. Just becuase you can defend ok against one agressive Civ, don't be brazen with others. If I had given into the demands of Montezuma and Isabelle, I probably could have avoided multiple wars and being militarily overwhelmed.
2. If your civ is confined to a small continent or island, advancing marine techs may be more important than advancing civics and other techs. Though I could rapidly produce my best naval units, caravelles, they provided little resistance to enemy frigates, who blasted away at my coastal cities.
3. Though I founded a religeon, I didn't make it enough of a priorty to spread it to other civs early in the game, which could have made a big difference later.
4. I finally gave in to Isabelle and gave her my 3rd largest city in order to get a peace treaty. 8 turns later, it looks like it may possbily revolt and join my civ again due to its proximity to my capital- if this happens, it shows me that sometimes giving up a city is not as bad as it seems.

Each of these would not have stood out as mistakes had I been in the reloading cycle.

The only thing that seems really unfair on the higher levels is that other civs seem to advance techs improbably fast. I can't figure out how, but can only guess its because the AI civs trade techs among themselves indiscriminately. If so, this is the only thing that seems truly unfair- but maybe I'm missing something.

 

[manu-fan]

Another thing you hopefully learned is that the best defense is a good offense!

Note also that you can trade techs just as much as the AI. Go for techs not on their tech path and then trade it to everyone you can to fill in a lot of others you don't have. I'm not a master at this, but look at some of sisiutil's walkthroughs. He's been way behind in techs and caught up easily.

Cheers.

 

[futurehermit]

diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy

 

[ungy]

one thing I did as I moved up in levels was to initially start with a strong leader and then reload until I got what I thought was a good start. Then as I got comfortable with the level I would move to random leaders with random starts.
There is a danger, however, in getting used to "good" starts. Then when you play a poor start you start thinking the game is hopeless when in reality it isn't.

 

[Morgrad]

1. Just becuase you can defend ok against one agressive Civ, don't be brazen with others. If I had given into the demands of Montezuma and Isabelle, I probably could have avoided multiple wars and being militarily overwhelmed.

You're obviously a smart person, as you listed the most important lesson learned first. At Noble and under (and to a degree at Prince), you can laugh at the world as you impose your will with impunity. At Monarch and higher, you better make friends, even if you don't want to. Laugh at the world, and the world stomps you into the ground.

One of the most frusterating things to me about this game is that I know I'm a smart guy - not the smartest guy out there, but well above average (meaning close to on-par with your average Civ IV player), and yet I somehow get my ass handed to me by a stupid computer sometimes. It's amazingly discouraging, but that's where the challenge is and why I love the game so much. Of course, with my personality type, I hate losing a LOT more than I like winning......

FYI, another big thing about moving to Monarch+ (I don't have BtS yet, so I can't comment there) is that you won't be the tech leader all the time anymore. Just yesterday I played a game where I lost the Liberalism race by 13 turns, and by 1500 AD my two biggest rival civs had 7-8 techs on me and I had *zero* on them. I won the game by Space Race in 1900 - the best thing the AI had built was a Thruster - and I'm pretty sure I could have won it via conquest in the same time-frame if I wanted to.