How do you get better?

[DaveMcW]

Originally posted by hbdragon88


I had read Sultan's document "The Five Pillars" in the war academy and he was writing that civs with weak trokias (expasionists, commercial, military) are harder and gives you more of a challenge. Iroquois, England were some examples.

On topic:
As for map size, smaller is harder. Those give you a bigger challenge than standard or huge.

I disagree wirh almost all of your statements - they are way too general.

Expansionist rocks on huge maps.
Militaristic rocks for early warfare, which is almost required on higher levels.
Commercial really is the weakest, it doesn't help until the industrial age.

Iroqouis are incredibly powerful due to their UU.

Smaller is harder for culture/space race, easier for conquest.

 

[q33555]

Until I found this site I could barely win at Chieftan/Warlord. Now I have wins at Emperor - and can nearly hold my own in Diety (still haven't beaten it though ).

And the thing to have improved me so much? Reading the succession games, especially the RBE threads - and then having a look at sites like Sullla's and Sirian's. They have excellent writing skills making reading the game reports entertaining and I am constantly picking up new stuff - I have to say Sullla's training day game on Emperor was probably the thread I learnt by far the most on (read it here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23856 )

After that its just practice practice practice. I usually play smaller maps because I don't have the time or patience to complete games on larger maps.

 

[hbdragon88]

Originally posted by DaveMcW

Expansionist rocks on huge maps.
Militaristic rocks for early warfare, which is almost required on higher levels.
Commercial really is the weakest, it doesn't help until the industrial age.

Iroqouis are incredibly powerful due to their UU.

Smaller is harder for culture/space race, easier for conquest.

When I said weaker I meant harder, to compared to other civs that have better traits, like Industrious or scientific.

Militaristic was weak compared to Civ2 in the document.

Expansionist, I think was meant was that it helped realy early but didn't help in the later game.

Smaller is harder in grabbing land, and Huge and Large maps are hard for war and conquest - wars are long and civs are very developed city-wise.

 

[Karl_t_great]

Originally posted by hbdragon88

As for map size, smaller is harder. Those give you a bigger challenge than standard or huge.

Can't agree on this, it merely depends on Your strat&playstyle, as Bamspeedy pointed out.
I play mostly persians up to deity on tiny, but hardly survive emperor on huge (though I seldom have time to play a game on huge).

 

[DaveMcW]

I still say that on Diety militaristic beats scientific and religious and holds its own with industrious. If you can't win the early wars you're pretty much screwed.

 

[hbdragon88]

Lots of people voted "Harder level Large map"

I disagree with this. Going up in map size is challenge enough, on one level, depending on what you do. Going down...I'm not too sure about it. A factor is also how you win. It's a higher challenge to conquest on Huge than on Small. And to win a domination victory as well.

Level does make a difference, but going up in map size is just as good for me.