I don't understand how those expert players manage to do it
- Thread starter Glububble
- Start date
I believe some of the players actually use(d) a program that randomly generates maps and then calculates the potential score a player can get on the map based on land area.
I know I read such in a forum post some time ago. I think Moonsinger may have written the program, but I can't recall.
If I were trying a Deity/Sid game and was not used to playing at those levels, I would look for a start on grasslands with hills close by, a river, and one or two cattle. Keep restarting until you get that.
Some people like island starts - so pick archeplago. I prefer not starting on an island, because if you are falling behind, attacking a civ close in size to yours can give a rapid boost to your civ, and building up a navy to transport troops is time consuming.
Its been some time, and I've never bothered with the War Academy myself, but as I recall, my pattern for high level games was usually the same:
1) build as many settler as you can as fast you can (settler factories)
2) keep one or two workers per city
3) micro manage - every time a city grows in size, expands its borders, or workers improve a plot, open up the city window and make sure the citizens are working where you want them to be - I try to emphasize growth over production, switching worked plots when the production will not interfere with growth and vice versa (most frequantly occurring when a city is building settlers and workers).
4) Concentrate on defensive units unless preparing for an invasion
5) At some point find a fairly close by civ that is roughly the same size as yours, and invade
6) Use artillery, lots and lots of artillery, for invasions edit: but not until cannons at the earliest
7) Use gold to buy improvements, waiting one turn so the cost drops
When it comes to war, I try to have alot of workers - a LOT of workers -available to build roads/railroads quickly, and I purchase temples, walls, and barracks in conquered cities asap. On huge maps, I have clumps of 24-34 workers stacked up waiting for war, maybe 2 or 3 such stacks, depending on how late in the game it is.
I also never let my offensive units travel without a few defensive units to soak up attacks. Most wars are wars of attrition, so DON'T LOSE TROOPS.
Now, granted, these ideas may not work for everyone, and I admit I'm a bit quirky with my playstyle, but it seems like all of my high level games fell into this pattern.
I think the only thing that can foul up this approach is a superpower coming after you early on, or getting boxed in. So being able to predict AI behavior is important.
Oh, I almost forgot - its been awhile - but tech trading gets important too at some point, maybe around Emperor. Have to be sly, and learn what the AI is going to go after, and what trades they are likely to make. Even on Regent this may matter.
As an example, I'm playing on Marla's world map as Germany, Regent, starting with 3 cities. Russia starts with... maybe 30 cities? I was at war with Russia, and had riflemen, and Russia sent an infranty unit at me. I was kinda surprised they were that far ahead of me in the tech race.
As it turned out, I restarted because I had made a few modding slip ups, the main one being I had forgotten to give all the artillery units lethal bombardment.
In the next game (on Regent), I completely avoided any of the unnecessary-to-advance era advancements (I'm a bit spoiled on Regent), and then bee-lined for replaceable parts, and was way ahead in the tech race. I was able to trade for the techs I had forsaken with much weaker civs also, so still was able to build the wonders I wanted, like Magellan's.
The lesson learned was that I played smarter regarding research, and it meant about an 8 or 9 tech difference when I got to the same point in the game - having done nothing else different.
And one sneaky tip I have is whenever you have a chance to trade a civ for one of their workers, do so, the earlier in the game the better. Use these to speed up settler production or add growth to one of your cities that is emphasizing military production.
Okay, just to verify that my strategies can still work, I did a quick Sid game. Well, several bad starts, one short game that was not a success, and then enough of a successful one to know I was going to win.
The bad starts were just due to location. No rivers, I restart. No grasslands or floodpains with wheat, I restart. I can live with wheat on grasslands, but prefer cattle. I can live with forests over hills too (and these can help build a granary quickly).
The unsuccessful game was due to my being used to playing on edited scenarios and being spoiled by regent. I sent out unprotected settlers too far, going for luxuries, and lost them. I may or may not have been able to correct the situation, but wasn't interested in investing the time.
The succesful attempt (the second actual attempt) I was bordered by the Aztecs, Zulu, Japanese, and Chinese (and the Netherlands, but they were a non factor other than settling cities to my north in the tundra) - I was playing a huge map with random opponents.
*a quick note - I don't normally play with goody huts, and I had forgotten how overpowered they can be. I did another quicker test after this, and I recommend playing as the US with industrialization and scouts. I only found India and China, but I had four cities before either of them, and thanks to my scouts and some trading was ahead of both in the tech race. Advanced players will favor other civs, but for a first timer the US is pretty darn good for at least keeping you competitive.
Having the Aztecs and Zulu close by was actually a godsend. 1) because it forced me to build more spearmen early, which I probably wouldn't have done otherwise (a mistake), and 2) because I could play them off one another - or at least let them attack each other.
I worked a balance between settlers and troops. I quickly caught up in size to the other guys, and meanwhile war had broken out and I took two Zulu cities, a key Aztec city that had iron close to my capital, and two Chinese - and China had had two raized by the Zulu. By then I was caught up in techs. Game over.
The start is so critical. I noticed I hand tundra very close by to my north, and an ocean to the east. Great borders, but not boxed in. Plenty of of forests and hills, and decent resources.
I just spammed settlers from day one out of the capital.
Hope this helps.
The bad starts were just due to location. No rivers, I restart. No grasslands or floodpains with wheat, I restart. I can live with wheat on grasslands, but prefer cattle. I can live with forests over hills too (and these can help build a granary quickly).
The unsuccessful game was due to my being used to playing on edited scenarios and being spoiled by regent. I sent out unprotected settlers too far, going for luxuries, and lost them. I may or may not have been able to correct the situation, but wasn't interested in investing the time.
The succesful attempt (the second actual attempt) I was bordered by the Aztecs, Zulu, Japanese, and Chinese (and the Netherlands, but they were a non factor other than settling cities to my north in the tundra) - I was playing a huge map with random opponents.
*a quick note - I don't normally play with goody huts, and I had forgotten how overpowered they can be. I did another quicker test after this, and I recommend playing as the US with industrialization and scouts. I only found India and China, but I had four cities before either of them, and thanks to my scouts and some trading was ahead of both in the tech race. Advanced players will favor other civs, but for a first timer the US is pretty darn good for at least keeping you competitive.
Having the Aztecs and Zulu close by was actually a godsend. 1) because it forced me to build more spearmen early, which I probably wouldn't have done otherwise (a mistake), and 2) because I could play them off one another - or at least let them attack each other.
I worked a balance between settlers and troops. I quickly caught up in size to the other guys, and meanwhile war had broken out and I took two Zulu cities, a key Aztec city that had iron close to my capital, and two Chinese - and China had had two raized by the Zulu. By then I was caught up in techs. Game over.
The start is so critical. I noticed I hand tundra very close by to my north, and an ocean to the east. Great borders, but not boxed in. Plenty of of forests and hills, and decent resources.
I just spammed settlers from day one out of the capital.
Hope this helps.
Pretty hard to get 4 towns, before the AI on Sid. They start the game with 3 settlers. Pay only 40% for things, so making a settler is less than half your cost. I would think the only way to do it, is if that civ was unable to find a place to plant the towns.
Well, if they get attacked and crippled is another way.
Concentrate on defensive units is usually a weaker idea in all levels, unless you plan on a very early war at higher levels or AW.
Well, if they get attacked and crippled is another way.
Concentrate on defensive units is usually a weaker idea in all levels, unless you plan on a very early war at higher levels or AW.
Hmm, that might explain it then. I was on floodplains with wheat on my start, with both bonus grassland and forest nearby. South was enough room for one more city then ocean, west was desert, north seemed to go on forever.
To my southeast was jungle then China. To my north was India.
Even so, if China was hard pressed for territory I should still have seen settlers walking by, unless the jungle dissuaded them. I didn't see any settlers. No, wait, I did see one, like two turns before I quit, come out of China. But he wasn't heading for the free spot between us, he was going due north, probably towards some wine that was a ways off.
Of course, I had not explored the whole map. Could be I am completely mistaken about how many cities they had. I only played until I had satisfied my curiosity as to the effectiveness of Expansionist on a game with goodie huts.
The bottom line is that I decided Expansionist, having scouts, has decent value, and that the US could be a good choice for players new to the high levels.
As to defensive units being a weaker idea, I dunno. I'd rather defend a city with two defensive units than two offensive units. I'd rather fortify a hill with iron with defensive units than with offensive units. If my civ is smaller than the guy attacking me, and his army is alot bigger, I'm going to come to par much faster with defensive units.
So, until a player has some decent military industrialization going, I'd strongly suggest to a player new to high levels to concentrate on defensive units early on. One defensive unit can take out more than one offensive enemy unit per turn. The reverse is rarely true. So my 10 turns of build time is equal to my oppenent's 20, if I can take out two offensive units.
Case in point, I held out against the Zulu and Aztecs with my defensive units. I would have been caught with my pants down if I had garrisoned archers. But just to be clear, I am not suggesting one NOT build offensive units. What I am suggesting is one not favor them at the fledgling stage because their value is so diminished - wait until you have the manpower to at least defend what is yours.
And one more thing: always plan for early war! "Ye who sleeps with no shotgun in bed is ye who wakes without ye head!"
"agonists"
Let me put it this way"
in one HoF SId game, you see where the player had 1 town at 3150BC. Mind you this is a top 5 game. The AI had 4 towns. That is turn 12, no human will have 4 towns at turn 12.
At 2390BC the player had their 4th town. Most AI's had 9, at least 1 had 10.
I did not mention the statement about the AZ being a lucky draw as a neighbor. IMO it is about the worse draw I can imagine. The cheap UU will be able to swamp you in a hurry and there is nothing you could do about it.
They start with 12 defensive units and 6 offensive units. That will be terror for the human, who has no troops to start at all.
"Of course, I had not explored the whole map. Could be I am completely mistaken about how many cities they had. I only played until I had satisfied my curiosity as to the effectiveness of Expansionist on a game with goodie huts."
America is about the poorest civ in the game as it has a UU that is not a factor, it is expansionist. That is a very poor trait for high level games. Not so bad for below emperor.
The reason is that you do not want to have huts in games above emperor. Especially at Sid, where you have so little chance to pop anything good and a small chance to find many huts.
Now if you are on a huge map, with less than the normal amount if civs, that is a bit different. Huts will help the AI and they will send out units to track down barbs and be all over your land.
This will lead to at least demands and possible wars. You have to cave to demands in the AA at DG or better IMO.
"As to defensive units being a weaker idea, I dunno. I'd rather defend a city with two defensive units than two offensive units. I'd rather fortify a hill with iron with defensive units than with offensive units. If my civ is smaller than the guy attacking me, and his army is alot bigger, I'm going to come to par much faster with defensive units."
At Sid your army is never going to be bigger than any AI, maybe at least in the first two ages. Often I have attacked the last ai on sid to find over 2000 units. You going to have that many?
Of course defenders defend better. That is not at issue. The issue is you do not want to have to fight them when you have spears. You will lose. Well actually sword defend at the same level as spears and the swords can attack.
"So, until a player has some decent military industrialization going, I'd strongly suggest to a player new to high levels to concentrate on defensive units early on. One defensive unit can take out more than one offensive enemy unit per turn. The reverse is rarely true. So my 10 turns of build time is equal to my oppenent's 20, if I can take out two offensive units."
First high levels is DG or better. Second you want to not be attacked, but do the attacking. You cannot attack with spears. The reason offensive units are better is that the ai determines your strength via your units.
Attackers are going to make you stronger in the AI's eyes. That means less chance to get a demand or a war. You will get demands, but fewer and less expansive is the idea.
"Case in point, I held out against the Zulu and Aztecs with my defensive units. I would have been caught with my pants down if I had garrisoned archers"
I cannot address this as I do not know the specifics. I do know that I am going to try to be on good terms with neighbors at the spear and archer stage as I cannot win a war then. I need to avoid it or mitigate it.
If you were able to defend with spears, they were not trying very hard or you have way too many spears to ever get the economy going. There is a cost for everything.
Now 10 spears and 2 archers may get you attacked, where 8 archers and 4 spears may not get attacked. Again the spears are not going to kill units on your turn, only on defense.
Zulu and Az are the two with the earliest and cheapest UU. JW are 10 shields. For the AI on Sid they are 4 shields. How well could anyone stand up with them cranking them out and probably had at least 30 units by turn 40 as they started 18.
Let me put it this way"
in one HoF SId game, you see where the player had 1 town at 3150BC. Mind you this is a top 5 game. The AI had 4 towns. That is turn 12, no human will have 4 towns at turn 12.
At 2390BC the player had their 4th town. Most AI's had 9, at least 1 had 10.
I did not mention the statement about the AZ being a lucky draw as a neighbor. IMO it is about the worse draw I can imagine. The cheap UU will be able to swamp you in a hurry and there is nothing you could do about it.
They start with 12 defensive units and 6 offensive units. That will be terror for the human, who has no troops to start at all.
"Of course, I had not explored the whole map. Could be I am completely mistaken about how many cities they had. I only played until I had satisfied my curiosity as to the effectiveness of Expansionist on a game with goodie huts."
America is about the poorest civ in the game as it has a UU that is not a factor, it is expansionist. That is a very poor trait for high level games. Not so bad for below emperor.
The reason is that you do not want to have huts in games above emperor. Especially at Sid, where you have so little chance to pop anything good and a small chance to find many huts.
Now if you are on a huge map, with less than the normal amount if civs, that is a bit different. Huts will help the AI and they will send out units to track down barbs and be all over your land.
This will lead to at least demands and possible wars. You have to cave to demands in the AA at DG or better IMO.
"As to defensive units being a weaker idea, I dunno. I'd rather defend a city with two defensive units than two offensive units. I'd rather fortify a hill with iron with defensive units than with offensive units. If my civ is smaller than the guy attacking me, and his army is alot bigger, I'm going to come to par much faster with defensive units."
At Sid your army is never going to be bigger than any AI, maybe at least in the first two ages. Often I have attacked the last ai on sid to find over 2000 units. You going to have that many?
Of course defenders defend better. That is not at issue. The issue is you do not want to have to fight them when you have spears. You will lose. Well actually sword defend at the same level as spears and the swords can attack.
"So, until a player has some decent military industrialization going, I'd strongly suggest to a player new to high levels to concentrate on defensive units early on. One defensive unit can take out more than one offensive enemy unit per turn. The reverse is rarely true. So my 10 turns of build time is equal to my oppenent's 20, if I can take out two offensive units."
First high levels is DG or better. Second you want to not be attacked, but do the attacking. You cannot attack with spears. The reason offensive units are better is that the ai determines your strength via your units.
Attackers are going to make you stronger in the AI's eyes. That means less chance to get a demand or a war. You will get demands, but fewer and less expansive is the idea.
"Case in point, I held out against the Zulu and Aztecs with my defensive units. I would have been caught with my pants down if I had garrisoned archers"
I cannot address this as I do not know the specifics. I do know that I am going to try to be on good terms with neighbors at the spear and archer stage as I cannot win a war then. I need to avoid it or mitigate it.
If you were able to defend with spears, they were not trying very hard or you have way too many spears to ever get the economy going. There is a cost for everything.
Now 10 spears and 2 archers may get you attacked, where 8 archers and 4 spears may not get attacked. Again the spears are not going to kill units on your turn, only on defense.
Zulu and Az are the two with the earliest and cheapest UU. JW are 10 shields. For the AI on Sid they are 4 shields. How well could anyone stand up with them cranking them out and probably had at least 30 units by turn 40 as they started 18.
Well, I realize my playstyle is not the same as everyones, and I hadn't played in a long time, which is why I playtested.
I was satisfied with the results.
The caveat being I wasn't concerned with breaking any score records.
Would I say I was wrong about anything? The more I think about your earlier post, the more I suspect that what I saw of India and China was only the tip of the iceberg. Yet if they had a lot of cities I couldn't see, their research wasn't showing it, and there was a healthy lack of troop movement on their part.
Did I get lucky at all? I admitted I controlled the starting position. Other than that, getting iron close to my capital is pretty significant - even though I had to take an Aztec city to acquire it.
Could I have lost? Absolutely. I doubt I could have gotten a diplomatic victory. I wasn't really concerned about a diplomatic victory though.
So, keeping that in mind, and recognizing the selective start and lucky iron, and that I wasn't trying for a HoF score, I'd say my playstyle worked well. It was able to put a player (me) in a position to win on the high levels - which is what the OP was discussing.
Now, considering that you, I suspect, are quite familiar with playing on the high levels, whereas I mostly play on Regent with no victory conditions, I think my position of expertise is more closely aligned with the OP's, which is to say, it may be easier for him to implement and understand my strategies and at least get to a competitive position.
But I feel like I am defending my post, and I have no further desire to do that. The OP can freely ignore it. I'm not going to put up a HoF game simply to gain credibility in your eyes.
I was satisfied with the results.
The caveat being I wasn't concerned with breaking any score records.
Would I say I was wrong about anything? The more I think about your earlier post, the more I suspect that what I saw of India and China was only the tip of the iceberg. Yet if they had a lot of cities I couldn't see, their research wasn't showing it, and there was a healthy lack of troop movement on their part.
Did I get lucky at all? I admitted I controlled the starting position. Other than that, getting iron close to my capital is pretty significant - even though I had to take an Aztec city to acquire it.
Could I have lost? Absolutely. I doubt I could have gotten a diplomatic victory. I wasn't really concerned about a diplomatic victory though.
So, keeping that in mind, and recognizing the selective start and lucky iron, and that I wasn't trying for a HoF score, I'd say my playstyle worked well. It was able to put a player (me) in a position to win on the high levels - which is what the OP was discussing.
Now, considering that you, I suspect, are quite familiar with playing on the high levels, whereas I mostly play on Regent with no victory conditions, I think my position of expertise is more closely aligned with the OP's, which is to say, it may be easier for him to implement and understand my strategies and at least get to a competitive position.
But I feel like I am defending my post, and I have no further desire to do that. The OP can freely ignore it. I'm not going to put up a HoF game simply to gain credibility in your eyes.
Similar threads
