How do civs tech so fast on prince?

[insaneweasel]

First of all, I'm a noob (just my first civ experience a month ago).

I was playing a continents game as Mehmed with four AI. I started with Montezuma and Mao on the same continent, and we were all friendly, trading techs and whatnot.

The thing is, Hatshepsut and Augustus each started on tiny islands without much food, production, or even happiness resources. They each had only about 6 cities, while we all had a bunch more. But strangely, when we first came in contact with them during the renaissance era, they were massively ahead in techs compared to us. I still don't tech well, but I don't see how much of an advantage they could have had. Both Hats and August had 12 cities between them, and even trading together I don't understand how they could have had such a massive lead.

 

[Higher Game]

I think a lot of AIs open up strong because of settling specialists and bulbing techs; this runs out of steam by the end of the game. I would only worry if they maintain a big lead in the industrial era.

 

[Derakon]

Maybe one of them vassalized the other and was using it as a research assistant.

Speaking of settled specialists, I just took over Monty's capital in my current game, and he settled two great scientists there. We then brokered peace, and he immediately switched to Pacifism...

 

[AutomatedTeller]

I assume hatty had 1 or more religions and shrines? that means a lot of gold and a lot of happiness from that?

having a lot of cities can mean being less able to tech - hatty and augustus may well have been running 70 or 80% research, while you guy have been running less.

 

[lymond]

First of all, although Prince is a rather easy level and not far removed from Noble, the AI bonus do ramp up here whereas Noble is basically neutral in that regard.

With that said, we have little info about your game, where you are in the game, or an understanding of how good a player you are. There's a couple of possible factors here. First, the tech pace on your side of the world is either dictated by you or the AI. In your case, the AI in your area is rather weak. Monty is a notoriously bad techer and Mao is not much better. So with those two, the human is likely setting the tech pace unless that human is just not very good yet. Even with trading, if your overall tech rate is not the good and you don't have an understanding of how to run an effective economy, it is not unlikely that AIs you don't meet until Optics are ahead of you. If Hat and Augie are just setting there peacefully for millenia, regardless of land, they might tech at a nice pace. Hatty might have built the mids, or AC, and run a specailist economy and bulb lots of techs - all while trading. Both of them are pretty decent AIs in peaceful situations. Again, all this is said without really seeing the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Friendly + tech trades + proper empire setup + luck in terms of tech researched/swapped.

No reason a cookie cutter empire like this forum advocates couldn't blow them out though.

 

[insaneweasel]

With that said, we have little info about your game, where you are in the game, or an understanding of how good a player you are.

Answers to the three questions, in order:
-Started with a semi-decent capital with a bunch of farmed floodplains, but Monty boxed me in and got pyramids and great Library.
-I had started making troops to attack him, and had taken a few of his cities. It was around 1450, and I was losing money at a 0% tech rate, but Mao, Hats and Augustus had exactly 6 cities each. I had about 10 and Monty had 13. The Island civs had guilds, banking, compass, optics, astronomy, philosophy, etc., while most of us didn't.
-REALLY bad. I am still just a beginner.

Even with trading, if your overall tech rate is not the good and you don't have an understanding of how to run an effective economy, it is not unlikely that AIs you don't meet until Optics are ahead of you. If Hat and Augie are just setting there peacefully for millenia, regardless of land, they might tech at a nice pace. Hatty might have built the mids, or AC, and run a specailist economy and bulb lots of techs - all while trading. Both of them are pretty decent AIs in peaceful situations. Again, all this is said without really seeing the game.

I can see how they might be good techers, but the thing I don't understand is how they could have gotten so far ahead with only 6 cities and essentially NO happiness resources, no gold and no gems. Augustus had ivory, but that's pretty much it. They had fish, sheep, corn and food, but it seems as though they wouldn't have good enough production to keep their population super happy.

 

[itg]

It sounds more likely that you were teching slowly than they were teching quickly. If you're losing gold at 0% at 1450 AD, you're probably doing something wrong. A save would help a lot, but if I had to guess I'd say you didn't improve your land properly or quickly enough (you aren't automating your workers, are you?). For one, floodplains should usually be cottaged, not farmed, unless there's a major lack of food in the city.

 

[insaneweasel]

It sounds more likely that you were teching slowly than they were teching quickly. If you're losing gold at 0% at 1450 AD, you're probably doing something wrong. A save would help a lot, but if I had to guess I'd say you didn't improve your land properly or quickly enough (you aren't automating your workers, are you?). For one, floodplains should usually be cottaged, not farmed, unless there's a major lack of food in the city.

There is a chance, of course, that I was automating my 6 workers

The game keeps telling me that I have the leadership of Dan Quayle, so that must mean I'm doing something right. He was one of our best VPs...his brain was as large as a potatoe!

It's a good thing the leader rating can't go higher than that, or my ego would just grow to monumental proportions.

 

[s.bernbaum]

There is a chance, of course, that I was automating my 6 workers

The game keeps telling me that I have the leadership of Dan Quayle, so that must mean I'm doing something right. He was one of our best VPs...his brain was as large as a potatoe!

It's a good thing the leader rating can't go higher than that, or my ego would just grow to monumental proportions.

Since the rest of your post is obviously tongue in cheek, I don't know if you are serious about having only 6 workers. If you are, that is part of your problem. I would have between 10 and 20 workers at this stage of the game with 10 cities.

 

[insaneweasel]

Since the rest of your post is obviously tongue in cheek, I don't know if you are serious about having only 6 workers. If you are, that is part of your problem. I would have between 10 and 20 workers at this stage of the game with 10 cities.

Really, I had only 6 workers. I'm transitioning from Age of Empires, which is pretty quick, so waiting 10 or so turns for a unit to do something tries my patience. I think my biggest problem is that I want it to be like Age of Empires, with tons of medieval units bringing the smackdown. After that period I sort of run out of steam.

But yeah, I guess 6 is bad for this game.

 

[lymond]

It doesn't matter how many cities you have if you don't know what to do with them. 6 cities for the human can win many a game. There are other ways into happiness besides happiness resources such as Hereditary Rule or Representation, as well as several buildings including religious buildings which Hatty usually has a lot of. There are several AIs that tech very aggressively with a small empire - like Mansa and Pacal.

Sounds like you are very new to the game. No...this is not Age of Empires. TBS is a different animal, but both games involve strategy. I suggest hanging out over at the Strategy forum - you will learn a lot more there.

 

[Derakon]

The main thing with workers is that they not be automated, not that you have a lot of them. You only need enough to quickly improve any new cities' squares, plus a few to handle things like "Whups, just got railroads so now I have to rebuild all my connections". The last Prince game I played, I only built two...and captured probably 8 more. That was plenty.

As for tech rate vs. city count, while it's true that a large number of decent cities will beat a small number of good cities at teching, a small number of good cities will also beat a large number of bad cities. And if Hatshepsut and Augustus were peaceful on their own little island there, they weren't wasting resources getting into big drag-out wars, which can be an incredible drain on your economy*. And of course they'd be more willing to trade techs with each other, which is a big timesaver. Every tech you can buy/steal is a tech you don't have to spend turns researching.

* Lesson one of warmaking: build more siege. Lesson two of warmaking: wars should be as short as possible. The ideal would be to declare war and move your units into range of the target city on turn 1, then on turn 2 bombard the city, kill its defenders, capture/raze it, and declare peace. Well, you might not want to declare peace immediately if you have more cities to take out, but you get the idea.