-
📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you create personalized picture books for kids in seconds. Give it a try and let me know what you think!
I won on Prince
- Thread starter tony777
- Start date
Congrats 
I'm hovering between Noble and Prince at the moment, I've gone 1 from 2 at prince, but didn't like how the AI got such a head start. On the other hand, on noble I've almost made it to the stage where I might see the mythical spearman vs tank battle. Maybe I'll just go buy BtS with it's upgraded AI.
I'm hovering between Noble and Prince at the moment, I've gone 1 from 2 at prince, but didn't like how the AI got such a head start. On the other hand, on noble I've almost made it to the stage where I might see the mythical spearman vs tank battle. Maybe I'll just go buy BtS with it's upgraded AI.
darkchampion
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12
best thing about BtS is the ethnic unit graphics, scenarios, and new tech tree even if it does prevent the cossack hordes from conquering the globe (cavalry doesnt comes as easily). However I can't stand the way corporations and espionage work.
Not that it matters much. They switched poor Catherine's leader traits around
Not that it matters much. They switched poor Catherine's leader traits around
I have won on Prince a couple of times now and they were space race wins. I hate how space race gets me small points. This has been brought up in other threads but I will say it again-space race should be worth more points as a victory. Domination is difficult for me on Prince because by the time I conquer my island (continents) the other one or two islands are way ahead tech wise. I have to play catch up and trade and would have big problems sailing all they way over with enough units to get a decent foothold and start conquering the other continent(s). But I am sure it could be done.
SickCycle
Prince
I like playing on prince myself it allows you the freedom to do what you want and with "better AI" checked on BTS it's actually pretty decent.
I've played a few monarch games and where as I could see myself winning it just takes to much micromanagment and planning it takes out the fun and turns it into a numbers game, I usually don't finish them after about midway, I just get lazy and want to automate.
Aslong as you understand the basics and the strats you can automate everything on prince and still have a tech lead, be in the top tier for score, and keep up militarily (with better AI).
The trick is just to understand the basic strategies, I often will use a financial civ and automate my workers because in BTS they will actually cottage spam after building farms for growth aslong as you dont have the "Dont change old improvements" checked.
It's getting kinda boring though knowing your gonna win.
Axe Rush pretty much equals Game Over.
Also, I think the biggest problem I had when I first started going up in diff was over-expansion or under expansion, not understanding how to rush very early, not knowing how to properly use slavery, not understanding city placement or specialization, you have to strike a nice balance between expansion, teching, and military (especially with better AI).
I'd actually suggest before moving up a difficulty switch your current one to Aggressive AI and see if you can win, if you can your usually good to go for a regular game on the next level, it really improves your gameplay learning how to adapt to the better AI, you just gotta understand that if you show a weakness they "will" go for it if they are an aggressive civ.
I always go for a Military victory and if your having trouble moving up I'd suggest trying Shaka out and reading up on early axe rush strategies but mix in a double stack of Impi to cut off his resources early and deny him copper, you use the UB to drop your city costs by 20% which can be huge and he has beautiful synergy with an early rush due to being aggressive and expansive, faster barracks, faster workers, faster granaries, Impi for double movement and cutting off resources, it really works well to get you a great empire, the double capital just seals the deal.
Try to learn how to do a rough dot map in your head just by looking at the terrain and counting the surplus and negative food, it's the single biggest thing you can learn to do, and dot mapping everything just takes to long, find a spot that would make a good prod/com/gp city and just do a quick count up of the +/- in your head to see what makes the best placement in the area.
Also, one or two extra gold or a gem/gold mine even a seafood+fin or an oasis in the early game can be game breaking, if you wanna rush moving your settler to a plains hill right next to your start location that can be huge even if you lose a turn.
I've played a few monarch games and where as I could see myself winning it just takes to much micromanagment and planning it takes out the fun and turns it into a numbers game, I usually don't finish them after about midway, I just get lazy and want to automate.
Aslong as you understand the basics and the strats you can automate everything on prince and still have a tech lead, be in the top tier for score, and keep up militarily (with better AI).
The trick is just to understand the basic strategies, I often will use a financial civ and automate my workers because in BTS they will actually cottage spam after building farms for growth aslong as you dont have the "Dont change old improvements" checked.
It's getting kinda boring though knowing your gonna win.
Axe Rush pretty much equals Game Over.
Also, I think the biggest problem I had when I first started going up in diff was over-expansion or under expansion, not understanding how to rush very early, not knowing how to properly use slavery, not understanding city placement or specialization, you have to strike a nice balance between expansion, teching, and military (especially with better AI).
I'd actually suggest before moving up a difficulty switch your current one to Aggressive AI and see if you can win, if you can your usually good to go for a regular game on the next level, it really improves your gameplay learning how to adapt to the better AI, you just gotta understand that if you show a weakness they "will" go for it if they are an aggressive civ.
I always go for a Military victory and if your having trouble moving up I'd suggest trying Shaka out and reading up on early axe rush strategies but mix in a double stack of Impi to cut off his resources early and deny him copper, you use the UB to drop your city costs by 20% which can be huge and he has beautiful synergy with an early rush due to being aggressive and expansive, faster barracks, faster workers, faster granaries, Impi for double movement and cutting off resources, it really works well to get you a great empire, the double capital just seals the deal.
Try to learn how to do a rough dot map in your head just by looking at the terrain and counting the surplus and negative food, it's the single biggest thing you can learn to do, and dot mapping everything just takes to long, find a spot that would make a good prod/com/gp city and just do a quick count up of the +/- in your head to see what makes the best placement in the area.
Also, one or two extra gold or a gem/gold mine even a seafood+fin or an oasis in the early game can be game breaking, if you wanna rush moving your settler to a plains hill right next to your start location that can be huge even if you lose a turn.
I have yet to try a game with the opponents set to aggressive. You seem to know exactly how my games are unfolding though as you have no doubt been where I am at now at some point in the past. Military victory is seen by many as the only "real"win and I will admit it is much harder than space race win. I know how to dot map using the print screen method but it has not yet become automatic for me when sizing up city locations. But I have become a huge beleiver in city specialization. Cottage spamming is a favorite tactic although sometimes I get so caught up in improving floodplains early on I neglect production. So often I will automate after clicking leave old improvements alone.
In terms of slavery I always wait the 10 turns before whipping complete and I never take the pop down by more than 1. I am still playing Vanilla but I have Warlords. After a few games of WL I noticed that the AI is far better than Vanilla. I was thinking I will start on Warlords after winning on Monarch in Vanilla.
In terms of slavery I always wait the 10 turns before whipping complete and I never take the pop down by more than 1. I am still playing Vanilla but I have Warlords. After a few games of WL I noticed that the AI is far better than Vanilla. I was thinking I will start on Warlords after winning on Monarch in Vanilla.
JujuLautre
Deity
That is a big mistake. First, because you could build really quickly expensive buildings if you have enough food benefit to regrow (like whipping courthouses with an oganized leader or forges with an industrious leader). And second, because you can't make unhappiness drop with such a strategy.
With 1 pop whipping, you get 1 unhappy from the whip, and 1 unhappy less from the pop. Total benefit: 0.
With 3 pop whipping (for example), you get -2 unhappiness. When cities are at their happiness cap or have unhappy citizens, this is very powerful.
Also, having a rule that state "never whip before 10 turns" is usually bad. I do not say that this decision is bad in general, but in a certain context it could be a great move (or a life-saver) to whip even if the unhappiness did not disappear.
SickCycle
Prince
I think this is about the 4th time I've posted these in the last two days 
but..
You should read Sistullis games and his Strategy guide if you haven't, his games taught me how to play all the input from great players in the chat and then seeing it unfold was everything.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5320091
Aelf is a fabulous player too but his games are a little higher difficulty, you should check them out he does some crazy stuff.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204202
I'm gonna put there games in my sig lol
but..You should read Sistullis games and his Strategy guide if you haven't, his games taught me how to play all the input from great players in the chat and then seeing it unfold was everything.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5320091
Aelf is a fabulous player too but his games are a little higher difficulty, you should check them out he does some crazy stuff.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204202
I'm gonna put there games in my sig lol
I read through all of Sisultis Montezuma game on prince and his domination victory. In my games I often end up on the small continent with one other civ rather than the main ontinent. Next time I will try for a domination.
In the past I was way to concerned about not starting a war past 1500 AD because with all the huge stacks and modern units it just seems too costly. So I would secure enough land early on to gaurantee a space win and build tons of units in case someone decided to surprise attack me. But a late war is necessary for a domination win on standard size continents. And supposedlu obsolete units can be useful for upgrades and for suicide missions such as catapults to weaken defences before riflemen or grenadiers go in. And it is OK to be at 40% science sometimes if military is the objective. Finally I learned that manipulating civics is important based on goals, such as theocracy for producing unit promotions. I hate messing with civics because of anarchy. BUT, why not play a civ that is suitable for domination if the goal is domination?!!!! Monty is great because of no anarchy and all the production bonuses. In fact, why not play a leader that suits your victory goal?!!! Before I play I will decide on a goal right from the start rather than see how things pan out and decide from there. Also the dot mapping puts real perspective on how I will plan the civ's growth.
It is just important to beeline those later military techs or trade them so I can wage the wars I need to. Thanks for the links.
In the past I was way to concerned about not starting a war past 1500 AD because with all the huge stacks and modern units it just seems too costly. So I would secure enough land early on to gaurantee a space win and build tons of units in case someone decided to surprise attack me. But a late war is necessary for a domination win on standard size continents. And supposedlu obsolete units can be useful for upgrades and for suicide missions such as catapults to weaken defences before riflemen or grenadiers go in. And it is OK to be at 40% science sometimes if military is the objective. Finally I learned that manipulating civics is important based on goals, such as theocracy for producing unit promotions. I hate messing with civics because of anarchy. BUT, why not play a civ that is suitable for domination if the goal is domination?!!!! Monty is great because of no anarchy and all the production bonuses. In fact, why not play a leader that suits your victory goal?!!! Before I play I will decide on a goal right from the start rather than see how things pan out and decide from there. Also the dot mapping puts real perspective on how I will plan the civ's growth.
It is just important to beeline those later military techs or trade them so I can wage the wars I need to. Thanks for the links.
