How can you compete on Monarch and above?

[DarkSchneider]

I was playing a game on Monarch the other day, and I thought I had a resonably good idea for a starting strategy. I researched animal husbandry from the get go, and also trained a worker. They were timed perfectly, so I acuired husbandry on the same turn that my worker was ready, and in six more turns I had a pasture for the cows that were next to my starting city. A number of turns later I built a farm on the corn resource.

Then I got to thinking, when playing Monarch, all of the opponent AIs get a worker for free at the start, I had to wait 18 turns to get my worker, and my city didn't grow at all in that time. In addition, at Monarch the AIs start with free tech, so in a way, it was if all the opponent AIs had an 18 turn head start on my Civilization, not to mention the 10% production bonuses they get the entire game.

Considering this, how can you compete with the computer on Monarch or above? I used to steal a worker and then chop rush to make up for lost time, but neither of those startegies work anymore. Prince seems very difficult in the beginning, but once you get ahead it's easy enough to stay in the lead, Monarch seems prohibitively difficult at the beginning. Your opponents get huge bonuses, and even if you can figure out a way to expand quickly, you can't without ruining your science.

 

[Bhruic]

Well, the trick is to realize that the AI is stupid. While it's true they get some bonuses, a crafty player can easily make those up in the long run. One of the more important things to do is war early. An Axe rush can really help you gain the cities and space that you need to compete. Beyond that, focusing on a specific strategy is necessary. You'll have a much harder time if you just play "in general". Pick a goal (ie, win condition) and focus on only what you need to accomplish that. For example, if you pick a Cultural win, there are a lot of techs you don't need to bother researching. If you are going Space Ship, you'll want to be ahead in tech, which means beelining to Democracy. The AI doesn't beeline tech like a human can, so you can pull ahead in specific areas. Also, selective trading becomes much more important as you'll actually be behind in tech at times - it's important to make good trades to help catch up.

Bh

 

[RogueFighter]

I have two words for you: World Builder. Heh, just kidding. I think it would be better if they made the AI smarter with each level instead of insane bonuses. It would be more fun

 

[DarkSchneider]

My general game is to anticipate where the computer will expand, and ensure that I get a lot of land in the early land grab. At that point I concentrate on gaining a tech advantage, and go to war with a neighbor once I'm sure that I have better stuff than them.

Based on all of the announcements, I believe that the computer is seriously out-teching me in the early running. I feel that with a lot of map regeneration and saving/loading I could come up with a win on Monarch, but it would be pretty hollow. Like I said I used to be able to win consitantly on Monarch by stealing a worker from my opponent, thus negating that advantage the AI gets, but now that workers cannot be moved the turn they are captured, it seems to work less than half the time I try it.

Personally, I wish the computer didn't start getting bonuses until at least the classical age, you just don't have that many options on what you can do in the early running, aside from getting a great starting spot I don't think you can compete with the extra worker, tech and blanket 10% bonuses in everything that the computer gets.

Even better, I wish that the bonuses that the computer get would start at 0, but go up by 2% or so for every age. Based on whatever age the most advanced player was on. I'd like to have a game where the computer actually presented a threat after the medieval age. In most of my games getting rifling/military tradition represents the end of any meaningful resistance by the AI.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Beating the AI to Alphabet and trading well helps equalize a lot, as does letting them build your cities and early war.

You don't have to engage in either of these to win - Monarch is winnable with an isolated start and no warfare at all. Eventually your better play catches up and passes the AI. Their bonuses don't beat your better city specialization, better military strategies and less "wasted" time building things you don't really need.

The main difference at monarch is you need to be much more focussed and accept that you will not be able to amble around the tech tree or build every building. Once you learn what you can live without you get much better.

In terms of difficulty, I'd like to see better play from the AI and smaller bonuses. I like the idea of the AI getting additional bonuses as the game goes on so that they remain competitive - this would be more fun than a big bonus up front.

But I don't like the idea of the AI getting better at high levels. I believe it should always play a good game. I doubt that designers can produce something with different AI strategies at different levels without either making the lower levels too dumb or leaving exploits at the higher levels as some of the combinations of strategies don't work well together. I'd rather have one balanced AI that just got additional bonuses at higher levels. Hopefully if the AI is better the bonuses don't need to be as huge.

I would like the AI to keep the different personalities for the different leaders though. Eg Monte attacking stupidly makes the game more interesting than if everyone played like Mansa. Even if that means the AI play isn't always optimal it means that each game is different as you play against different AI's and that makes it a different challenge.

 

[Morgrad]

Be smarter than the AI. =)

You're better at city specialization.
You're smarter with worker tasks.
You're much better at picking what to build, and understanding how many axemen you can get for the same price as the pyramids - and making an intelligent choice.
You're better at picking the best techs to research.
You're much, much better at stabbing a friendly civ in the back.
You're much better at making war.
You're much better at picking a victory condition and concentrating all of your efforts on obtaining it.

With all the advantages your brain has over the computer, it's amazing they win at all - which is what ticks me off so much when the AI beats me - but sometimes it does. =)

 

[cabert]

monarch is IMHO the best level: challenging, but not totally devoid of opportunities.

I can win (almost) all monarch games I start, if I :
- focus
- MM for the first part of the game (and until the end, no worker automation)
- play to my advantage (traits, UU, UB)

If you want to see how it can be done, Sisiutil's recent ALCs are at monarch difficulty.
He has one loss for 14 victories, so it's doable .

There are a lot of succession games played at monarch level, too. Check those, and improve fast .

 

[obsolete]

Why were you researching animal husbandry right off the bat on Monarch? That may be ok on Prince, but I would like to hear a good explanation on this.

 

[oyzar]

The AI is stupid and lack the ability to plan ahead. It is quite possible to beat them with pretty much any amount of bonuses...

 

[futurehermit]

What's wrong with researching AH right off the bat? I often do this (if I start with agriculture, not hunting)!!! Reveals horses (good) allows you to work herdable food resources in your capital (good).

Winning on Monarch:

-An early war helps a lot. If you have copper and a close neighbour, build 8-12 axes and go for the capital. If you have horses and a close neighbour, build 8-12 chariots and take 2 fringe cities. Go back for the capital when you have iron or construction. I don't like trying for capitals with regular chariots because they are pretty weak. If you play Egypt or Persia you are pretty much guaranteed an early enemy capital if there is one nearby. Might be a good idea to start with these civs to get your first win.

-Diplomacy can also make your life MUCH easier on Monarch. I had this sweet game the other day where my diplomacy rocked. One civ spread hinduism to me and I adopted it. Another civ adopted it as well. The fourth civ on my continent was HC and I took him out really quick as he was closeby. The fifth civ was also close to me and didn't have hinduism. I founded taoism and sent my missionary to him. That made him the enemy of the other two hindu civs. When I declared on him, I was able to bribe the other two civs to help making him easy meat. This is a much preferable situation to having civs dogpile on you because you were trading with their worst enemies, had a different religion than them, or you refused their demands/requests. Make allies and keep them as long as you need them. Focus on one enemy at a time if possible and bribe others to help you out (and to deny your enemy, trade embargoes, etc.).

-Focus. The higher skill levels are less forgiving so you need to focus. Plan ahead. Take some time to plan out your cities, what you will do a number of turns down the road, etc. This will help you plan your teching, etc.

-Make sure to generate great people. A few great people early on for lightbulbing, etc. can make life a lot easier. It can give you some techs (e.g., theology, philosophy, etc.) to trade around for important techs (construction, currency, code of laws, calendar, etc.).

-Monitor your expansion. You need to constantly expand, but not overexpand. If you don't expand enough you'll fall behind on science and production. If you expand too much, you'll stifle your economy. You need to strike a good balance as the game goes along.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I was playing a game on Monarch the other day, and I thought I had a resonably good idea for a starting strategy. I researched animal husbandry from the get go, and also trained a worker. They were timed perfectly, so I acuired husbandry on the same turn that my worker was ready, and in six more turns I had a pasture for the cows that were next to my starting city. A number of turns later I built a farm on the corn resource.

I'd argue that what you've described here isn't strategy, but tactical. Strategy isn't your top priority task; it's the thing that tells you which task has the highest priority.


My current suspicion is that Monarch is where you have to start recalibrating - being top dog from the classical era on stops being possible at some point, and you have to learn to recognize a winning position that isn't actually in the lead....

 

[futurehermit]

Yeah, don't worry about being #1 in score early on. Score is deceptive anyway, cuz it gives pts for wonders and big cities and stuff like that and much less for military might. So, forget about score, and focus on how you are going to win. It is still possible to win (with masses of troops) even if you are an era behind on tech. Of course on monarch you should be able to avoid this by lightbulbing and trading tech.

 

[Scaphism]

I'd argue that what you've described here isn't strategy, but tactical. Strategy isn't your top priority task; it's the thing that tells you which task has the highest priority.


My current suspicion is that Monarch is where you have to start recalibrating - being top dog from the classical era on stops being possible at some point, and you have to learn to recognize a winning position that isn't actually in the lead....

Well said. Learn to recognize a winning position that isn't actually in the lead. It's a crucial skill to learn and keep working at in any game as you are moving past the intermediate stages, and no less true for Civ.

 

[Dnomal]

If you're lookig for a way to get a one-up on Monarchy i reccommend playing as one of the follwing leaders:
Bismark - Cheap workers and wonders
Peter - Cheap workers and more great people.

These two leaders allow a quick one-up on other players, and Peter's cossack is damn good at conquest, especially if you beeline, and the Panzer makes you unstoppable.

Also there's other stuff, like organisising your workers into groups and having them work simultaneously e.g two workers have to build a road and a farm, working seperately, both the road and farm will be ready in (6) turns, but if they work together on the same thing, you'll have acess to the farm for an extra 2 turns.

I'm not sure if people do that already *shrugs*.

I recommend playing to your strengths, my own is as a great people junky, pushing out more and more, going further ahead in tech in the early game, allowing a technological edge by the mid game, and begginning a big expansion whicj conicides with new techs, e.g using grens against lonbows, infantry against rifeleman etc.

 

[facistal]

I have to disagree with your leader choices Dnomal. Not because those leaders suck or anything, but I would say that industrious is a dubious choice at monarch or above, the cheap workers of expansive are nice but hardly a game changer, and being philo, while supercool, can be tough to manage properly without alot of MM.

The traits that I think help out someone trying to bump up a level are financial, aggresssive, and if you have warlords charismatic.

The main reason being all of these traits help you without you really having to try to exploit them. Everybody needs to tech and war, and the extra early happiness of a charismatic is huge when you are used to prince and noble.

Just nitpicking.

 

[DarkSchneider]

I think that Hannibal is probably the best leader for Monarch, as Financial and Charismatic are probably the strongest two traits individually. I did finally start a game I feel I can win. I started on an island with one other person and I sent my initial warrior to steal his worker (successfully) And much later built Axemen to take his cities. Still I am running at 40%-50% for science and the other Civs have gotten ahead of me in tech.

WE'll see, certainly it's winnable at this point if I don't make any mistakes. But in general, when playing Monarch, unless I get an early worker steal, I find the AI have outexpanded me.

 

[r_rolo1]

IMHO the first game at any level should be done with one of the Ceasars ( If you can't win with them , you should get back a level )

Talking seriously, a financial civ is a good choice for learning Monarch ( more room for trial and error while fine tuning your performance). But believe me, Monarch is beatable without worker steal, in isolation, with no wars and with a agressive civ . Just look at willpax Lonely Heart series ( currentely on second instalement). It's just a question of focusing in what you need and using the unique features of your civ ( like cabert said above )

 

[LuckyAC]

Augustus Caesar is the easiest to play certainly, maybe too easy. Very strong traits for quick expansion and obviously a fairly decent UU. Huyana is extremely strong as well, barbarians are much less of an early threat and rushes are possible as well, and very good traits. I like Mansa Musa's traits the most, even if his UB and UU aren't very good. Any leader is fine, though - the AI is extremely stupid.

If you go to HR quickly and get a size 12+ capital with an academy and towns in 400 BC or whatever, you will destroy the AIs tech pace on Monarch, even without trading. My current game on Immortal, I won the Liberalism race with an isolated start (and thus zero trades), while another continent had all three leaders in a Jewish lovefest. With trading, you can easily overcome even lightbulb deficits. Even if you are behind on tech, you can outwit them in wars.

 

[Harbourboy]

I agree that Monarch is probably the "best" level. You can win consistently by being smart, but you can't relax too much. Above Monarch, you need a few more wacky gambits to win.

But the general theme of this thread is that you can specialise better than the AI can, in terms of:
- techs (only researching the stuff you need)
- cities (AI is not capable of building good GP farms and specialist science cities)
- warfare (AI is not at good at building the stacks that are specialised for the exact mission objective)
- diplomacy (AI has no specific diplomatic objectives)

 

[scy12]

I have to disagree with your leader choices Dnomal. Not because those leaders suck or anything, but I would say that industrious is a dubious choice at monarch or above, the cheap workers of expansive are nice but hardly a game changer, and being philo, while supercool, can be tough to manage properly without alot of MM.

The traits that I think help out someone trying to bump up a level are financial, aggresssive, and if you have warlords charismatic.

The main reason being all of these traits help you without you really having to try to exploit them. Everybody needs to tech and war, and the extra early happiness of a charismatic is huge when you are used to prince and noble.

Just nitpicking.

I have to disagree about Industrious . Some of early wonders may be extremely important to one's strategy . For example the Pyramids , reprecentation is extremely powerful . Or Oracle , getting to metal casting early allow you to build a forge and run a Ge who can be used to byleene machinery or you may get to Code of Laws and Currency earlier. Industrious can be a real asset early game and let you outtech the Ai , it is also a trait that has very good synergy with other traits. Later you can build those national wonders and such faster.

Financial ,Aggresive , Charismatic and Philosophical along with Spiritual are also good choices.