late game declines

[Dreadmaker]

hey guys.

I play on noble.


I have a pretty consistent problem in the world of civ. 90% of my games happen this way, and I'm looking for a way out. but, first, allow me to tell you my play style, and strategies I tend to use.

out of the gate, my order is : worker, settler, stonehenge. my second city builds worker/oracle, while my first city, done stonehenge, moves on to settler three. then I start with the military, and continue with settlers. my hope through this is that I can gain a large landmass foothold early, and be a powerhouse for production and research later.

this usually works brilliantly, and I tend to get awesome amounts of GPs and culture in the beginning. plus, because of multiple towns, and the research paths I tend to take, I end up in good standing really very quickly, and am usually an early point leader.

my problem is that somewhere in the middle, I'm not quite sure where, I start to fall behind. even with more cities and such, I consistently never get across the ocean first, and I never tend to get important techs, like liberalism, first.

it's most noticable a bit later, though. I celebrate, because I have rifleman now, and cavalry, and planes on the way, but I recon an AI, and I find that they have... infantry?? already? this is what kills me (literally and figuratively), and I really can't understand what's going on.

before you ask, YES, I am controlling my own workers, and I think I'm doing quite a decent job with them. but, therein lies my second question :

I try to focus on economy with my workers... or at least, I am always conscious of it. should I be more aggressive with it? example: let's say there are five river squares in a city's borders. how many should be farms, how many should be cottages, etc.? I think that the worker improvements issue is the biggest problem for me.

I tend to play Qin (ind/fin).

I know this is a long read, but help would be really appreciated. thanks in advance!!

 

[homeyg]

Can you post a save? (btw, are you playing vanilla, warlords, or BtS?)

 

[citedon]

Hi Dread,

What victory goal do you have for your games? If you have an end game strategy and stick to it, there will be times when you will fall behind in certain aspects of the game. Just be patient and this usually works itself out, especially if you have established a sound economy early on. It would seem that you do that. Are you following a tech path with a specific goal in mind?

Not knowing more about your game and seeing that you are new to these forums (unless you have been a long time lurker like me), I would recomend that you read everything in the War Acadamy. You might need to do more toward specializing your cities. It might also be a good idea to do a forum search. This is at the top of the page. Simply type in a subject, such as economy, mid game, etc. You will have access to almost everything that has been written about the subject. There will be a lot of helpful info there.
Good luck.

 

[vicawoo]

There might be some economic improvements you can make, but also beelining and trading can make a huge difference. If you go straight for liberalism and trade for side techs as you need them, you'll it's easy to stay ahead age-wise. Also, monitor the opponents tech more frequently so you can discover when they are surpassing you.

 

[futurehermit]

Lower-level players tend to:

1) Not build enough military

2) Not expand their territory enough

3) Not build enough commerce cities (that get almost all cottages, assuming enough food)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Lower-level players tend to:

1) Not build enough military

2) Not expand their territory enough

3) Not build enough commerce cities (that get almost all cottages, assuming enough food)

Does taking cottaged enemy cities in the late BC's/early AD's count towards #3?

I agree with this though, although I'm pretty new to Civ4 myself. When I made the jump to warlord then noble earlier, one of the things I did was automate ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING for a few games. Yes, that resolved to mashing enter mostly. I actually won a couple on noble this way (diplomacy and attacking weaker players FTW), but that wasn't my true intent. Because I was on Noble, I got to see EXACTLY how the computer will tend to build military and use its workers. Military tendencies in particular were useful, because after a few games I had a rough idea of the type and #'s the AI would have if they DoW'd me (or more likely, I wanted their stuff but wanted to make sure i'd get it). Of course, on higher difficulties the AI gets a production bonus, BUT they usually don't leverage that entire production bonus into military. Usually. Unless they're monty or something .

If you're on noble and sagging late-game, it's likely that your problem is a little different. If you're running CE try to get happiness (monarchy or massive happy resources) and get tons of commerce cities with science buildings in them (these multipliers add up fast with large, cottaged cities). Also, be sure to tech broker if you don't play with that off. You can keep up in tech with like 3 cities total in Prince that way. There's no way the AI will have infantry vs your riflles on noble if you have spammed enough cottages and avoided constant warfare. If push comes to shove though, just grab some siege and smack those infantry down anyway .

 

[Artichoker]

hey guys.

I play on noble.


I have a pretty consistent problem in the world of civ. 90% of my games happen this way, and I'm looking for a way out. but, first, allow me to tell you my play style, and strategies I tend to use.

out of the gate, my order is : worker, settler, stonehenge. my second city builds worker/oracle, while my first city, done stonehenge, moves on to settler three. then I start with the military, and continue with settlers. my hope through this is that I can gain a large landmass foothold early, and be a powerhouse for production and research later.

this usually works brilliantly, and I tend to get awesome amounts of GPs and culture in the beginning. plus, because of multiple towns, and the research paths I tend to take, I end up in good standing really very quickly, and am usually an early point leader.

my problem is that somewhere in the middle, I'm not quite sure where, I start to fall behind. even with more cities and such, I consistently never get across the ocean first, and I never tend to get important techs, like liberalism, first.

it's most noticable a bit later, though. I celebrate, because I have rifleman now, and cavalry, and planes on the way, but I recon an AI, and I find that they have... infantry?? already? this is what kills me (literally and figuratively), and I really can't understand what's going on.

before you ask, YES, I am controlling my own workers, and I think I'm doing quite a decent job with them. but, therein lies my second question :

I try to focus on economy with my workers... or at least, I am always conscious of it. should I be more aggressive with it? example: let's say there are five river squares in a city's borders. how many should be farms, how many should be cottages, etc.? I think that the worker improvements issue is the biggest problem for me.

I tend to play Qin (ind/fin).

I know this is a long read, but help would be really appreciated. thanks in advance!!

The fact that you discovered the AI rival's Infantry by accident tells me one thing that's probably happening--you're probably not trading enough.

Every few turns, you should keep yourself updated on the techs that other civs have available for trade. Anytime you see a rival civ that has techs, GP/turn, or resources available for trade, you should see whether you can somehow trade for them.

Sometimes it's OK to accept a "losing" trade, as long you are still gaining more than you are losing. "Losing" something is not the same as giving a tech to another civ as part of a trade. When you give a tech to another civ, you do not lose anything, but merely give the other civ a boost in tech. That's OK as long as the benefit they gain from the trade does not make them too powerful in comparison to your own civ.

It's also OK, sometimes, to accept the demands of other civs, especially when it comes to tech, as long as you know that the extra tech you give them does not make that civ too powerful (or gives away a technological edge that can be traded to other rival civs).


Example...Let's say there are 4 civs, A, B, C, D, and you are controlling civ A. You have a tech lead of 1 tech, and the techs that each civ have are:

A: Currency, Code of Laws

B: Currency

C: Metal Casting

D: Code of Laws


Let's say that B trades Currency to C for his Metal Casting, and then trades Currency to D for his Code of Laws.

Meanwhile, C trades his Metal Casting to D for his Code of Laws. And you, A, don't make any trade here. After trading, the civs and their respective techs are:

A: Currency, Code of Laws

B: Currency, Metal Casting, Code of Laws

C: Currency, Metal Casting, Code of Laws

D: Currency, Metal Casting, Code of Laws


What has happened as a result of this trading? You, civ A, went from being 1 tech ahead, to 1 tech behind! It's the tremendous power of combined trading that enables rival civs to pull ahead in tech past a tech leader, in such a short amount of time, that you always need to be on the lookout for.

 

[lovetramy]

if you play prince and below my advice is very quick expansion at the beginning , try to get at least 6-8 cities in good spot . Then assign 2 city for troops , 1 for GP spam , the rest .... cottages
i usually have infantry while AIs busy teching gunpower @ prince

 

[BigDaddyOttawa]

I think the big problem is you have a preset strategy from the offset regardless of the hand you are dealt.

Is stonehedge a priority right off the bat? If you are isolated on an island, the answer would be no but you wouldn't know that unit you scout around.

You build The Oracle... but why? Yes it is good to build it merely from the stance of keeping the AI from getting a free tech... but what are you using The Oracle for? Are you going for a specfic slingshot or just grabbing it for the sake of grabbing it?

I guess what I take from your initial post is that you don't seem to have clearly defined goals. Try to have a major goal (victory condition) that matches up with your leaders abilties and your civ's UU and UB. Then break that down into mini goals that work towards that end product.

I used to "coast" like it seems you are now through a game. You can do it and still win... but having a clear set of goals that give you an advantage over the AI or get you closer to your victory condition will help you focus in on the truly important things you need to accomplish and you'll find things going your way more often that not.

Another thing I'd add to futurehermits point

2a) not aggressive enough

It isn't enough to put huge stacks to protect your cities and get settlers out to every available open spot on the map. You've gotta be at war ... usually early and often. I think a lot of newer players tend to follow 'builder' styles of play (I know I did). You really don't see the kind of success you'll need until you are sticking it to the AI, especially civs like Monty Cathy and Shaka. Otherwise, they are just going to do exactly what you mention, beeline all the hard core military techs and come back and bite you in the a**

My two cents.

 

[Dreadmaker]

first off, thanks to everyone.

second, I'm on vanilla... forgot to mention that in post number 1.


now, about what I build the oracle for, as the previous poster was questioning. that is usually my trip to metal casting. it is a slingshot. I tend to get bronze working immediately for the chop, followed by various improvement techs, i.e. wheel, pottery, animal husbandry, etc. this usually opens up metal casting as an option, but it takes tons more research than anything else to do at that time. I get it, and the reason I do it is :

forges, which help the production to a point that I like a lot.

if I get a tech from tribal villages after I hit MC, suddenly I have a possibility they will give me something like machinery, which is amazing so early in the game (it's happened before... cho-ko-nus ridiculously fast).

in general, opens up a bunch of techs for me, and puts me exponentially ahead in terms of research.



I am beginning to think my main problem is simply not being militaristic enough. I tend to build units, and defend, but I just don't get my military out there in force, because I think that, especially in the early days, the fear of not being strong enough is what kills me. I have had many an experience that while I'm killing someone, they manage to "out defence" me, meaning that their towns are better defended than I can manage, in the days before catapults, anyhow. then, I sit there, wasting units and praying. I'm sure there are better ways around this problem. the other day, I had a very good game where I had the point lead by about 1000, because I killed two people relatively early, and amassed about 25 cities on a standard map. but as I continued to grow, and research with this power, I still found people with infantry when I was still dealing with cavs and rifles.


the trading more often was interesting. I will try that.

now that I've cleared this up a little, any more recommendations on dealing with military fear (induced by learning to be a culture tank early in my civ career)?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Military Fear" is more a result of personality than anything. However, ANYBODY can overcome it just by fighting alot. You'll get used to the kinds of things computers have at what times, and also how it distributes units, attacks, and what it makes at certain techs. If you know this it gets much easier from a psychological standpoint to pull the trigger. Of course, my noobiest days actually saw the opposite because of the kind of player I am - I rushed with insufficient forces and got worked. At least those games ended fast .

 

[InFlux5]

With that type of starting strategy (a wonder in both cities) your problem is probably slow early expansion, leading to an empire that's too small.

This is the price of those two early wonders. Yes, you get rapid cultural expansion for those 2 cities; but imagine if you had used all those hammers for Settlers. Your empire would probably be twice as large, if not more.

Focusing on culture early is generally a bad idea, unless you were gonna try some variation of this type of game: Cultural Conquest. Building Stonehenge will often be a good idea for a non-Creative leader, but think hard about whether you need the other wonders you are building. "Wonder addiction" can often be a hindrance to improving your game.

 

[BigDaddyOttawa]

The Oracle is an early wonder. In reality, how many early forges are you going to need. If you are specializing your cities, that would be one or two.

Unless you are attempting the MC-Pyramids gambit... using The Oracle for MC just for forges is a bit of a waste. Using it to found Confusianism and unlock Caste System or to hit Machinery to get your Crossbows going... that has long term effect.

Think of it this way... you are burning through 150 hammers to access a building that is going to cost you almost as many hammers as the wonder (120 hammers) and will only result in the short term in maybe 10 or 15 plus hammers per turn. Now granted, you are getting a tech worth around 450 beakers.

For the same 150 hammers (rough cost of Oracle, less if you have Marble), you could found a new religion, unlock a civics or worker tech (monarch or calendar), unlock techs worth far more than Metal Casting ( a CS slingslot is fully doable on Noble and worth almost double Metal Casting) etc...

Growing your population to work more tiles will get you just as many hammers as going early MC to try to build forges. You get Civil Service with Oracle, and all of the sudden your capital is producing 50% more hammers and 50% more currency through Bureaucracy... I think that is a far greater infusion of resources to an early civ than a forge.

 

[BigDaddyOttawa]

Think about it... in the time it takes you to build one forge, that same city could have produced around 4 axemen. In the early game, you need more units than you need infrastructure. You can't early rush a city with a forge, but on Noble, 4 axeman will easily steal you a city and a worker or two.

 

[BigDaddyOttawa]

first off, thanks to everyone.
if I get a tech from tribal villages after I hit MC, suddenly I have a possibility they will give me something like machinery, which is amazing so early in the game (it's happened before... cho-ko-nus ridiculously fast).

If you are still popping goodie huts after building the oracle... then you aren't scouting enough in the early game. By the time you've done Oracle, you should either have explored the entire map yourself, or your opponents should have explorered at least their territories and popped everything already.

With Qin, using Oracle to unlock your Cho-Ko-Nu with Machinery would be a much wiser investment. We have to get you in the mindset of NEEDING military units

 

[futurehermit]

More Military

 

[BigDaddyOttawa]

Hehe... the two Canadians pushing for more miltary units.

 

[futurehermit]

What can I say, we learn from our imperialistic neighbours to the South

 

[Dreadmaker]

thanks again, guys.

I think you are right about the forges early on. and I think that I DON't get enough military out there early. I too am canadian, and quite frankly, I haven't gotten into the military mindset yet.

I would be interested to know about the civil service sling... I don't yet. I assume that just means you research MC on your own, then oracle machinery?

if someone could link me to it, that would be great.

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

You get all the prerequisites for CS, and then use the oracle to learn CS. I guess it's possible to pull it off on noble, but impossible on higher difficulties unless you're playing vanilla civ. BTS adds a bunch more prereqs for civil service.