I feel like I'm running in place

[mice]

mva or others here, I have a question: are you more math inclined types or creative/language types?

I can only feel my way through strategies like that and it's gotten me to Prince level and that's about it. I doubt I will ever do better, and that's fine. I really think this game lends itself to a certain type of learner or thinker.

This is an interesting post. Probably suited for a separate thread, but.. I am not mathematical, but I am analytical, in a language way.

I think the game appeals to people with both leanings , as long as they are analytical.

Excuse the thread jack.

 

[Sisiutil]

mva or others here, I have a question: are you more math inclined types or creative/language types?

I think that might have something to do with some of us hitting this wall. I really understand your comment about not quite putting it all together.

I've noticed there are people who play this game so well and they write reports or strategy guides that just make me go: huh? I mean, they seem to have these mathematical brains. I'm not that type at all (which makes me wonder why I even like this game).

For example I have read the strategies for the optimal time for using the whip about a 100 times, and I still just don't get it entirely ... there is just too much math and calculation that makes my brain ache. Yet then I will see players talk about their games and refer to very specific tidbits of knowledge that guide them through it.

I can only feel my way through strategies like that and it's gotten me to Prince level and that's about it. I doubt I will ever do better, and that's fine. I really think this game lends itself to a certain type of learner or thinker.

Well, let me point out, as an author of a handful of strategy guides, that I'm definitely more of a creative/language type of person and definitely not mathematical. Don't get me wrong, math doesn't scare me; I can do math, and do it well, if I set my mind to it. I just find it rather boring.

(One of the little things Firaxis has done with each expansion pack and patch is take more of the math out of the game. For example, being able to see how many turns to go before the next GP would appear--something added in Warlords--was huge to me.)

This is probably why I still play on Monarch level, though. I get the feeling that playing on the higher levels requires more of those math skills, which is why I'm kind of deterred by them. Doing a lot of math feels more like balancing my check book than playing a game.

 

[Harbourboy]

My 2c worth:

1)

A point of advice I have is to take a break at certain points

I have to agree that that is the most powerful piece of advice for me. My best games have been the ones that have had a night of sleep in between sessions. The longer the session I play, the worse the game ends up being. Not sure why.

2. Play on a harder level. Sure, you'll lose all the time, but it's the best way to learn what strategies are important. On the lower levels, the game is too forgiving of crappy early decisions, so you get lulled into lazy tactics, which then result in poor positions in a few centuries' time. If you move up to Prince, you will find your current tactics result in your empire being outgunned before the AD years. So you will be forced to pay closer attention to what you do in the first 50-100 turns, which will in turn result in an improvement in your understanding and approach to the game. I am currently playing on Deity level. I haven't won any yet (although I've come agonisingly close a couple of times) but I have sure learnt the value of every single tile and resource and gold coin and beaker and hammer - and that I can't afford to waste a single one. On Noble level, you tend to squander hammers left right and centre.

 

[Mango]

The best players don't decide their victory until at least after assessing their surroundings. Of course if you pick your leader and your landmass then maybe you can go for one thing at the beginning, but if it's random like a lot of people choose then scout around and see, and also look at who you are playing as (and against).

 

[LikeMike]

Well I just had my second try at a praet rush... I did significantly better, as I was always the attacker and also captured and held a few of his citys. By the way, my opponent right here was dshingis khan (why do I always get the aggressive ones?). But it still wasn`t worth it! The war kept going a real long time, at the end my science slider was at 0. My praets weren`t that better than his units (mostly axes). I got the upper hand again when I got my cats, but it was more of a houndred year long war, than a rush.

Is this only really possible when I`m playing against a more peaceful leader, who doesn`t have any copper/iron yet? Or am I just too stupid to pull it off right? Or does it take me too long to get the rush going (I am stil trying to grab an early wonder, so I am not beelining straight ahaed for iron working. I usually go for religion first, then my worker techs, than i try to get iron working)?

Oh and @ Sisutil: what are you doing here? You have a round waiting for you to be played . I can`t wait to read the next one!

 

[vorlon_mi]

Echoing some of the sentiments expressed ........

0) Take a break. Especially in the early game, when you have to keep
hitting Enter or clicking to end the turn, I get lulled into a habit of clicking
too quickly. And then realizing there was something I forgot to do!
Taking a break will clear your head.
It will also let you exploit the single biggest advantage the human has
in a turn-based game ... you can think as long as you want. Once I save
the game and exit, my mind is still spinning with ideas about what to do with
this city, or how big that neighbor is, or what the next tech should be.
Look at both the short-term, and long-term.

1) "In time of peace, prepare for war" Set one city to just build military
units. Even if you don't have any current plans for war. It can build
attackers, or archers for defending your new cities, or extra catapults
for suiciding. Build 'em and stockpile 'em, and upgrade them if you have
spare cash. Then, when an opportunity presents itself, you will have
some military to seize the opportunity.

2) Mathematical vs. language/creative Yeah, I'm probably the mathematical
type. But one can view Civ thru other prisms as well...
-- city specialization: each city utilizes its own strengths, in harmony
with the land around it. Don't ask it to become something it is not.
-- life in balance: have a mixture of cottages and farms, mines and windmills, mounted and melee units. Yes, there are certain times where
one unit is *much* better, but there are many times where a sense of
balance is good.
Oh, and the comment about a rhythm -- grow, fight, consolidate --
that's good advice, too. If you've been doing one thing for 10 turns or so,
pause, and consider whether you need to make some changes.
The AI cannot plan ahead like you can ... so make some plans that involve
a 3-5 turn recipe, and execute them!

 

[mva5580]

Just some awesome posts here everyone, I really, really appreciate it. Seriously I think I enjoy reading this message board almost as much as I do playing the game, it's so interesting to read everyone's strategies and how their games go. You all do a terrific job of describing what you think works and how I can possibly apply it. I really, really appreciate it.

I think what I'm going to do is take the advice of upping the level, probably stopping at Prince, and just, like some have said, taking a beating for a little while but as I do, just keep improving and learning what I need to do so I can hang with the AI.

Another thing that someone mentioned, that I KNOW I do in the game, is I start out with some focused strategy, but at some point it's like I just lose it and start researching techs just to keep moving along, and just kind of lose my initial strategy and do stuff just for the sake of doing it.

We'll see where it goes, but I know I want to stay this out and get to the point where I can come on here and post and say "I WON!" I know I can get there, just need to work at it. Thanks so much for all the posts, I'm sure I will reference them!

And I know some were asking, I'm playing Beyond the Sword.

 

[Harbourboy]

I usually go for religion first

That could be part of the problem. If you're trying something like a Praetorian rush, then do a damned Praetorian rush. Don't stuff around with religions. That tells me that you are trying to do too many things at once:
a) founding religions
b) building wonders
c) building military units
d) attacking enemies

Try this: Beeline straight for iron working. Hook up iron. Build praetorians. Attack enemy. Raze their cities. Keep their capital.

Focus, Daniel-san! All of power, whole body, fit in one inch, here!

 

[DrLaban]

I didn't see anyone else say it so I do: When I started out I had problems since I didn't build enough workers. I could found four different cities that didn't have anything to work except grassland forests for a long time. Now I usually don't build a settler if I don't have a worker or two that can accompany it to get cities online ASAP.

A good rule of thumb is to have at least one worker per city.

Also think about food; this was my second problem. I made cottages and mines everywhere but didn't think about food which resulted in cities taking far too long to grow to a useful size.

---

Other players that are better than me have already talked about the long term strategical thinking.

 

[Garand]

Everyone has done a good job of explaining things to make you go further... specializing cities, whip-chops, etc. Well, a simple tactic I've found to be useful in just about every game is to take a break whenever you feel like you're not making much progress. But don't stop playing. Instead, look at your advisor screens, look at the map, look at your relations with other civs and what you are trading, look at state of your nation, and plan your future.

You'd be surprised at how often you get sidetracked and lose sight of the forest through all the trees while you play. Assess your situation and identify what is holding you back.

I had this happen in one game of Civ III as the Greeks where I was falling behind, and as many folks will tell you, Civ III was largely reliant on having several cities. Well, I was hemmed in in the corner of a continent with nowhere to expand except through war. I assessed the situation, took a look at my empire, and realized that my land use wasn't optimal. I was able to settle two new cities in areas of land I already controlled. The extra production and taxes turned out to be a game-saver for me.

This is a good way to not get bogged down in micromanagement and be able to enjoy playing the game, and to chart the course of your empire and make necessary changes that you might have missed in the mundane turn-to-turn stuff.

 

[AnaNg]

A good rule of thumb is to have at least one worker per city.

OK this brings up a question I have - I have done better when, at the start, I make sure I have plenty of workers to work my cities.

But after a while I have all these annoying workers nagging at me for something to do and there's nothing! Sure there are some times when I can convert one improvement into something else or it's time to build lumbermills in my forests or chain farms, etc.

But... sometimes there just isn't. Is there someting useful that can be done with all these spare guys or do you just park them somewhere and put them to sleep until the next round of improvements opens up?

 

[axident]

No. It helps, but it isn't necessary.

(Disclaimer: commentary below refers to ancient era starts, and may not be applicable in other settings).

Why is it not necessary? Because the fundamental problems that need to be addressed in the early going are the same (how can I raise the happy cap? how do I expand my borders? how do I defend myself?).

It helps, in that the goal gives you something you can use to judge the choices that the game presents to you.

However, its a very distant target to aim for, especially when you don't have very much information about the map. Much easier to find a reasonable objective at a comfortable distance, and figure out how to work toward that.

I tend to think that, at normal speed, 1000 BC is about where your first goal should be. In other words, you should have some sense for what your civ is doing that far ahead. The information you have at the start will be the main basis for choosing this goal.

As you gather more information, you may find that you ditch that goal for another. My gut says that by 3000 BC you should be pretty confident what things are going to look like in 1000 BC.


As a rule, people here love picking at other people starts (see any ALC: six pages of discussion over where the scout should move prior to setting the first city). So what I would recommend is that you post a sample start, and invite comments.

Here are the elements that I would include:
1) screenshot of the initial starting position, with the grid and the resource markers turned on.
2) a description of your play up to 3000 BC or so (especially justification for your choices)
3) the goal you chose for 1000BC (ish)
4) and outline of your play to that point
5) description of the situation at that point, and where you think you should go next.


One further suggestion: concentrate on the broad strategic strokes, rather than the tactical details.

I more or less agree with VoU except that I stick with the safe, tried and true strats:

1. If you're isolated, think Space Race vic. Maybe cultural if you are set up properly for it and have enough cities (nine).

2. If not, go for domination. If you get out of control early you can go Conquest, if you fail domination you'll probably have enough land and hence production to win a space race, etc. Domination is a great default goal to have and the one I always go for if not isolated. Having enough land and pop also means having control of the UN if you care for Dip Vics (I don't; I think it's boring as hell).

3. You need at least a few trading partners/non-enemies so try to war selectively. I used to try to befriend one flank and then mercilessly pound the other to extinction. These days I actually try to befriend anyone really far away, while exterminating my immediate neighbors. See what works for you.

4. If you're still building up, give tribute to anyone who has the military to back up his/her threats. I love giving away crappy amounts of gold and/or tech for the 10 turns of guaranteed peace and +1 diplo.

5. Make advantageous tech trades and resource trades. I love trading away spare strategic stuff like copper, since later on the civ won't care for it but will still be stuck with the copper bill. Heck I trade away my last bit of copper if I don't need it for Cathedrals or Statue of Liberty.

6. Don't expand too rapidly or you will fall behind in the tech race. Depending on your UB, traits, and if you have CoL (I love the Oracle->CoL slingshot), you should keep it down to about 4-6 starting cities. Try 4 and using them to make barracks and to build and whip axemen early on to weaken or annihilate a neighbor. Then whip courthouses in all your cities, including the new ones.

7. I spend all game at 0% espionage. Great Wall's settled super spy does fine all by himself. Later courthouses, jails, etc. help even more. That spare commerce goes to science of course.

 

[DrLaban]

OK this brings up a question I have - I have done better when, at the start, I make sure I have plenty of workers to work my cities.

But after a while I have all these annoying workers nagging at me for something to do and there's nothing! Sure there are some times when I can convert one improvement into something else or it's time to build lumbermills in my forests or chain farms, etc.

But... sometimes there just isn't. Is there someting useful that can be done with all these spare guys or do you just park them somewhere and put them to sleep until the next round of improvements opens up?

I felt the same way in the beginning and therefore I didn't have many workers. As long as you are expanding they create a cascade effect, where your fifth city can have five workers improving it up to size in zero time. If you want to change conquered cities it is the same thing. By civil service and calender you have something for them to do as well. After railroad, though, they aren't good for much, but then you have gotten a lot of use of them already.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Not true. AI gets major advantages even on the lowest levels. This is kind of a myth and I'm not sure how it started. This is an important point to keep in mind if you are struggling even on Noble, especially in terms of your economy. If you want to move up to the higher levels, you have to start thinking in terms of how you can take advantage of things to overcome these advantages.

Well that makes me feel better.

So far, I can only win in BTS at noble level. At prince, the best I can do is to be the second highest score.