Keep...on...losing!

[MarkJohnson]

I've been playing for only a few months now and finally have beat the noble level consistantly now, I had a real hard time with noble, but could beat the next level down (Warlords) with ease. I started out learning the mechanics of the game, mostly the non-military side.

Well a few weeks ago I decided to try the military side of the game and was losing badly. I found an article by sisutil call "The early rush" and it helpped tremendously. It had good early game advice and teaches some basic strategies.

I think the only thing you need is to get better aquainted with the tactics and strategies in the game. I read a post the other day that has really helpped me. It was titled something like, "How many cities can you capture by 1AD" This challenge really helps you to figure out, not only your strategies, but the AI strategies a lot quicker than playing a whole game and trying to decide what the high and low points were.

I think if you give those two a try for a few days I think the military side of the game will improve for you.

Hope this helps
-=Mark=-

 

[r_rolo1]

To the OP

I don't see reference to pikes or any anti-mounted unit in Ragnar stacks.... some knight attacks would had wiped out most of his siege ( because of the flank atack ability )

Keeping forests in the first ring of a frontier city is not a good idea as well... I'm sure that you understood why by now

And passive defense in Civ IV is a bad idea... as in real life ( at least most of the times )

 

[Grawss]

I've been playing for only a few months now and finally have beat the noble level consistantly now, I had a real hard time with noble, but could beat the next level down (Warlords) with ease. I started out learning the mechanics of the game, mostly the non-military side.

Well a few weeks ago I decided to try the military side of the game and was losing badly. I found an article by sisutil call "The early rush" and it helpped tremendously. It had good early game advice and teaches some basic strategies.

I think the only thing you need is to get better aquainted with the tactics and strategies in the game. I read a post the other day that has really helpped me. It was titled something like, "How many cities can you capture by 1AD" This challenge really helps you to figure out, not only your strategies, but the AI strategies a lot quicker than playing a whole game and trying to decide what the high and low points were.

I think if you give those two a try for a few days I think the military side of the game will improve for you.

Hope this helps
-=Mark=-

For me, the biggest obstacle to constant warmongering was my economy getting destroyed (like most). I kept trying different strategies and having the new cities build courthouses first, etc. The problem wasn't infrastructure though; it was not having enough workers to quickly turn my newly acquired cities into something worth having. From that epiphany forward I have tons of workers. The micromanaging is a pain, but after a certain amount they'll finish cities and I won't need to build more for future cities.

 

[asabahi]

I remember early on when CIV4 came out someone mentioned that you need a lot more units than what was required in CIV3. My experience the number of units you need in your border cities increases as time goes by in the game. Early in the game 2-4 units will do. In the late game a decent stack of 8-10 is OK. Also By border cities I also mean coast cities. Always have a counter strike force ready to take one or 2 AI cities.

 

[mourndraken]

@Oski - Your start stragey in post #1 is questionable. Once in a while, I build a worker first. Not very often though. Units like workers and settlers (your first 2 builds) stop population growth.

A small city population makes your civ unproductive. It's better to start with a workboat if possible. Other options are a scout, a barracks, grainary, or Stonehenge. Early in the game, there really is nothing for a worker to do. When my poplution hits 3, I pop a settler.

Having a lousy start usually makes for a quick pathetic game. The AI in BTS is more nasty than previous versions

 

[Grawss]

@Oski - Your start stragey in post #1 is questionable. Once in a while, I build a worker first. Not very often though. Units like workers and settlers (your first 2 builds) stop population growth.

A small city population makes your civ unproductive. It's better to start with a workboat if possible. Other options are a scout, a barracks, grainary, or Stonehenge. Early in the game, there really is nothing for a worker to do. When my poplution hits 3, I pop a settler.

Having a lousy start usually makes for a quick pathetic game. The AI in BTS is more nasty than previous versions

There are several reasons to go worker first. If you have loads of forests in your capital, low/no food resource, not coastal, etc. If I start with a scout I'll probably build a warrior to try stealing my neighbor's first worker.

Loads of forests is the main reason to build a worker first (and second, most of the time). By the time your second worker is chopped there's room to start improving. By the time your first couple improvements are done, you can chop a settler.

 

[mourndraken]

sure forests are good. but you need bronze working.

so if you have a worker as your first build, he's not going to chop for awhile. My point stands.

 

[oranges]

It is rare for the first worker to have nothing to do. You'd essentially need a bunch of calendar resources in your BFC. Otherwise, it is likely that you have the tech for at least one. If starting with mining, I'd often go immediately for bronze working and it is researched just as the worker is to be completed. He can then chop rush whatever is needed, including settlers to shorten the no growth time. Also, if there is a food resources nearby, improving it will quickly make up for the no growth during worker build.

 

[MrCynical]

It's a very unusual start where a worker will have nothing to do if built immediately. About the only possible combination is if you start with every tile as a forest or ordinary water except a single animal husbandry resource, and you don't start with Mining or agriculture. If you go for an early religion (particularly if you don't start with Mysticism), you might want to go with something other than a worker.

Aside from those, a seafood start, or a Quecha rush, you want to go with a worker on turn 1. Your alternatives are;

Warrior (basically killing time unless you start with a scout),
Scout (dependent on starting tech, value highly dependent on difficulty level),
Barracks (utter waste of time and leaves city essentially active for longer than necesary even for growth),
Stonehenge (difficulty and starting tech dependent), work boat (largely a waste of time if not a seafood start)
Settler (a possible start for an Imperialistic civ, but still dubious relative to worker. improved resources and chopping can generally get a second city in place almost as fast, and the first is in a better state.

 

[mourndraken]

It's not about workers having nothing to do. It's about using the first 2 builds to make a worker and a settler. If you do these things, Your city is going to have a low population for quite some time. If the population is small, its immediately less productive.

 

[oranges]

You make it seem as if waiting until city grows to size 2 to 3 makes it far more productive, but that's really not the case. A city with population 1 with one improved resource tile is usually far better than size 2 city with no improved tiles because you have not build a worker. As for settler, the sooner you build the second city, the sooner it will grow and become productive itself. The initial one catches up quickly as well because you continue improving the tiles it uses.

There are very few circumstances when I find another strategy better, for instance, I'm pursuing an early religion and the second tile the city would use would also add some commerce. In any case, it is always a matter of preferring something else for some specific strategy, rather than overall "letting the city grow first" strategy being better.

 

[helemaalnicks]

If I play wonder rush on a high difficulty (emperor f.e.), I start with: worker-worker-great wall. The GW is an early wonder AI's are generally fond of, and the two workers are necessary for chopping (first one can build me a mine while BW is being researched). One worker is not enough to grab all the early (important) wonders like: oracle, GW, Mids, HG, GL, Part, SoZ, ToA, etc, etc, etc

 

[DMOC]

My other settings are usually Huge World, Continents map, Marathon pace, max # of AI's--like 18 or whatever--sometimes barbarians on, sometimes off. I used to play a lot as De Gaul, but switched lately to Huayna Capac. The Incans do well in the early game with their unique unit, so barbarians aren't a problem, and I like Huayna Capac's traits.

To start off playing, use Small/Standard maps. Don't play marathon as that gives the human unfair advantages -- Normal speed is much better to calibrate to, and you get through more games in less time which means more practice. Continents map is fine and helps your playing as you are sometimes forced to stop a runaway Zara Yaqob, Pericles, Willem van Orange, Shaka, etc. on the other continent.

Also, if you're trying to learn to play, never use the maximum number of AI's. Use the default number (this is 6 AI's on Standard sizes for a total of 7 players). This is becasue too many AI's will confuse the diplomatic situation and make it duller when you have to keep checking the AI's for "We have enough on our hands now" (you know what that means, right?). It also makes it hard to find out who likes each other, etc.

I'm sure that my problem is that I don't focus on my military enough. But my question's going to be how much is enough?

Just 1 unit garrison per city as well as a stack of doom somewhere in your empire if you plan to war. The amount of units in the stack of doom varies with era (only need 4-8 if in ancient era but in modern you may need over 100).

I start off fairly expansionist, building first a worker while researching mining then bronze-working. My starting unit explores, sticking to forests and hills for safety. After my worker I build a settler who then founds a city, typically near the closest copper. Starting city works on Stonehenge with worker chopping away, new city works on a worker. My unit patrols between the two.

Worker first-good. Settler after that-bad. Grow your capital to size 3-5 while building warriors/quechas on the way. These are your future city garrisoners and potential rush army. Use the worker to improve the land while your capital grows. By the time the capital is ready to produce a settler when it has grown, the settler is produced quickly due to the improved tiles and higher population.

Starting stonehenge already? On Noble difficulty, this is a huge nono as there is virtually no way you can miss it if you really want it. It's better to have your capital (which should be at or close to happy cap after producing first settler) produce some more workers (1-2 workers for every city), settlers, and warriors/quechas for city garrisons.

Research-wise after bronze working, I go for Roads then Pottery. If Judaism hasn't been founded I might go for Priesthood then Masonry then Monotheism next, otherwise Writing, consider making a move for Theology or Code of Laws, Alphabet, and the other early techs as needed (i.e., fishing if I've got clams and fish just waiting for me). Once I have a religion and Alphabet I'll start getting the requisites for Maceman, and then move right on towards Musketmen.

Never set a predefined tech path. Every game is different and you need to adjust. If you had 2 cows near capital, you would go Animal Husbandry, then do mining/bronze working for instance.

But generally, forgo Judaism. Religions...who really needs them? (unless you're going for cultural which you aren't implying.). I usually ignore monotheism and theology until the Industrial/Modern era unless something unusual happens. Code of Laws, though, is always an early proiority.

And muskets...ewwwww! I've never built a single musket all my CIV life...(which range from conquest victories on noble difficulty to deity space race victories on continents map.)

Back to how I do my cities. Ater each of the starting two cities has a worker, and the capital's built Stonehenge, they'll each build a Quechua. One will then build another settler while the other builds another Quechua. By that time I should have copper connected to the cities so I'll start building axemen. Ideally, one of my now-three cities will start building the Great Wall (more chopping to quicken the pace) while another builds an axeman and a third builds a third worker. I do some limited chopping to hasten the pace of the military/worker settler buildup. With three workers and about 6 military units, I'll have my cities building 2 axemen (or maybe a spearman if I've gotten the tech) and a settler. Found a fourth city. I'll generally get to work on either one more wonder--Pyramids, Temple of Artimis, or Parthenon--or some culture-building buildings like libraries, as well as more military. I'll build a fourth worker and then another settler. I'll have gotten a great prophet from Stonehenge and I'll use him to found my religion's building, thus making my money-life easier.

Tooo...many...wonders...

All this time, my workers have been predominantly building cottages and nabbing resources. With the limited chopping that I do, most cities have around 4 forest squares for health, some more, some less. The capital is usually kinda bare due to the two early wonders that I built.

Capital bare...AAAAUGH! MY WORST NIGHTMARE. Capital is the most important city, and it should be fairly improved by this time and get priority over other cities.

5 cities is generally about as far as I can comfortably expand before being nudged up with the AI's. I start diplomacy by only forging agreements with folks of my religion, and being extra-nice to them. I'll trade tech with everyone, generally trying to focus on who's at the bottom of the power chart.

Do not trade techs with everyone. You are helping them as well.

At this point, with three wonders, possibly starting on a fifth, about 3 military units in each city, lots of tech, 90% research due to all the wealth from my civ trait, the cottages, and my religion, I'm high up on the power chart. First, second, or third.

5 wonders is a little overboard unless you're playing a wonder economy game. If you're slider is at 90% you're not expanding fast enough. 3 defenders per city is too much...just 1 is necessary (believe me...I usually have my capital guarded by a warrior for the duration of a monarch/emperor/immortal/deity game).

I continue to build up a defensive military. I use money to keep all the units current-tech, and my research as I wrote has been focused towards getting new military units. I continue building military units in at least 2-3 of my cities. 1-2 cities will start building another available wonder. Any remaining city will build defensive or culture-boosting buildings. I don't build too many money-boosting buildings because I've got my research turned up so high the most of my money is coming from my religion or other effects.

Your research, as mentioned before, shouldn't be so high. If you've got no where to expand, it's time to capture cities instead of founding them.

So with that established, somewhere from that point forward I go from being on top to getting slaughtered. Now I'm not conquest minded, but I'm not a wimp either. I am constantly building a defensive military. It just never proves to be enough. I'm the cultural dominant on the board from all the wonders, which I also continue to build, and I'm a tech-heavy as well, which will often allow me to be more advanced than the civilizations that cream me, which adds a further degree of humiliation.

Don't build a defensive military. Build an offensive military. Cultural dominance is not important as having a large military.

In my last game, for instance, I had musketmen and was researching replaceable parts. Ragnar declares war with me. The tech-backwards bone-head doesn't even have gunpowder yet, so he's using his frothing-at-the-mouth berserkers against my musketeers' boomsticks. No competition, right?

Muskets are really not that good...enough macemen can easily whip a stack of muskets. I know since I always have lots of maces while the enemy AI has lots of muskets.My macemen and trebs clean the musket's clock.

I had a city with 6-8 units. I believe it was 2 musketeers, 2-3 macemen, a pikeman and a longbowman. Ragnar moved in with a stack of about 5 berserkers, 5 or so trebuchets, 2-3 knights, 2-3 elephants, and I think that's it. I moved another knight into the city with the intention of attacking.

By the way, you mean muskets, not musketeers (that's the French UU), right? And the stack that Ragnar brought should easily defeat your defending city stack because of the trebuchets.

Here was the first big problem. Because I had allowed forests to remain in my civilization, Ragnar parked his forces in a forest right next to my city. Any attack on him would have a 20-something chance of success.

So he starts using the trebuchets against my city, which has walls and a castle.

Always chop adjacent forests unless for very unusual situations.

Query: How does a trebuchet parked in a forest...work? In all the displays/videos/etc. of a trebuchet firing, it's gotta be out in the open. There's no room to set one up and get it firing from in a forest. Assuming that they're moving it out of the woods, to the sides of my walls or whatever to do the firing, why do they retain forest defense advantage? That all seems 100% unfair.

Lol...and in real life, leaders aren't immortal as well. Also, trebs don't get defensive bonuses, I think.

And...what exactly am I to do? At that very moment, I am 100% doomed as far as I can tell. Despite having a strong, tech-advanced defensive force fortified in a city, I cannot win. If I defend, the trebuchets wear down my walls to 0-10% within about 4 turns. At most I can squeeze another 2 musketmen into the city in that time. Who cares though? Once the walls are down, all the trebuchets attack, with their gazillion-hits collateral damage. By the time they start attacking with berserkers/knights, each of their units has 3 guys while each of mine has 1.

You should have known Ragnar would declare war on you before he actually did it by looking at the diplomacy screen. If, under where it says "Declare War on" for Ragnar he has "We have enough on our hands now," he is planning on attacking you. Simple looks at the diplomacy screen and army size should give you an idea of who he will attack.

So I mulled on it to use it as a lesson learned. Just build more military. I was building too many wonders. Probably true, but how MUCH more military do I need. The battle in that case wasn't even close. So I'm going to need well over double the defense force to protect the city. So maybe 20 units...per city? Is that what's considered a normal defense force? Should I just eradicate forests because they're good for nothing but the enemy?

I hope someone can set me straight about what I "need" to do to survive in the game, because I'm not seeing any easy fix, and I don't really think I want to play any more at this point. It's a bit un-fun to just play and play and lose and play and play and lose ad infinitum. Those 4 hours or so up til Ragnar are fun, but don't seem so fun right after that spectacular, unfair crush.

20 units in a city?!? that is too insane..like I said, one unit is enough. If you need to defend a city from an attack, bring your stack of doom to defend that city (it shouldn't take a while since you should know who will declare war on you before they actually declare war on you).

 

[Grawss]

Enough forests and I'll go worker-worker-settler. Especially if those forests are next to a river. I want that 1c released asap.

I'm with DMOC on religions. Without a very specific civ makeup or an isolated start, founding religions is normally an extremely risky move. I'd rather build 20 swordsman and capture a holy city for the bonuses rather than build 20 missionaries to spread that crap around, hoping they'll switch to my religion before some nut like Tokugawa declares war. I can never spread my religions anyway; almost all my games have Monty/Toku in them, and they'll never open their borders (I tried getting a good relation with them.. it just isn't possible without a lot of luck). In any case, you save a great prophet and won't have to pollute your great person pool with them (those shrines produce great prophet points, right? I can't remember; I think they do).

 

[Yzman]

Great posts in this topic for advice. The only thing I disagree with is not trading techs. Typically I trade any tech I can unless it is not good for me strategically.

Ex: If I am neighbors with Shaka, I will trade him a tech for economy, but I will not trade him any military techs. Why? Because I know he will use them to take my cities. And on noble(I don't like playing higher difficulties with their artificial difficulties) by trading most techs except for military I stay quite ahead in tech.

Basically, each situation is different. Hell, lots of times I will give techs to other nations to boost my relations with them. I find they usually end up vassalizing to me.

 

[Oski]

Just wanted to follow up on this. I followed a lot of the advice posted in this thread--not all, but a lot--and I seem to be doing a lot better. I kept the world/game settings the same.

I tried to be a bit more strategic about my wonders. I kept with Stonehenge but then went for Oracle to get the free tech and Colossus.

I built a larger military, but more importantly I tried to do more combined arms. I put a catapult in each city, along with 1-2 horseback units. That in addition to around 5 on-foot defenders by the medieval era. I'm still not at the point of an offensive military. I play defensively, with a strong economy and culture. However, I was rated at the top of the list in military strength.

I added an airship to the list of defenders in each city come physics. Since then I've been focusing a bit more on wonders, since there are so many in that early industrial period that all seem quite good. Broadway/RocknRoll/Hollywood for instance, not to mention the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty, the Dam, and Christ Redeemer. So I just finished quite a bit of wonder-building and am now further butressing my defense forces with tanks.

I have 12 or 13 cities, so that makes me the leader in land held. I'm keeping my research at 70%, money at 30%. I get about 200 gold/turn that way, which I primarily use to upgrade units as tech evolves.

I'm in first place, at around 2600 points, with the second place civ at around 2350 points.

I'm getting to the age of flight, which I figure will be the next major test of military sustainability. I don't have much experience defending against airstrikes. I figured that the airship defenses were a good place to start, and I have bunkers in nearly all of my cities.

I'd like to grab a few more economy-based techs before I take flight, so I can build the internet and found a merchant-based corporation. Any advice on that? If I maintain my lead, I'll hopefully try Monarch for my next game.

EDIT: Oh, forgot to mention, I did end up founding two religions. At one point I found myself with a great prophet and Theology unresearched. So I grabbed Christianity. At that point I had not declared a religion and most of my neighbors were Hindu. I figured that adopting Christianity would be a ticket to unwanted warfare, so I didn't. However, I built several monestaries and missionaries to spread the religion across most of the continent. I was hoping that some of the AI's would start converting, and then I'd follow suit. Didn't happen though, so I ended up adopting Hinduism once I got the Sistine Chapel and Sankpore. The spread of the religion made the Church of Nativity very prosperous for me though.

I later had the same thing happen with Islam. An available prophet and unresearched tech, so I went ahead and grabbed it, built the monestaries and missionaries and collected more money from the religion.