My tactics

[Dedodido]

My tactics at the start of the game go something like this:
At the very start I build as many cities as possible, building one Phalanx and then building a settler to improve two of the squares around it, and then going to build another city. If I ever encounter another of the tribes then I try to get peace as quickly as possible, but I don't let them push me about, so if it goes to war then there's nothing I can do about it. I keep this up for a bit, and then begin to improve aroung the cities a bit more, before seeing if their are any weak tribes I could take out.

 

[GaryNemo]

Sounds good. An option is to build a Warrior to explore, then Settler. The Settler builds one Road (unless there is River), then a second city. Same idea as yours, perhaps a bit quicker expansion. After 3-4 cities, build a Phx in your Capital and each citys' first Settler goes to immediately build a new city - a later settler builds one road as needed for serf productivity.

Do you head immediately for Monarchy and switch to that?

 

[funxus]

I too usually do as Gary, but after one/two settlers in the best city (usually the capital) I start a wonder, so if I'm lucky I can get HG and Colossus in the same city.
I agree with you on the enemy tribe, and too usually go for peace in the beginning. When my army is built up enough I start killing off my enemies one by one. The closest first.

 

[Ren]

At the start I usually build warriors instead of phalanxes unless I know there's an AI nearby - they both get upgraded to pikemen and musketeers when (not if) I get Leo's Workshop. Also I don't usually improve my land all that much at the beginning (until about 7 or 8 cities), just connect my cities with road.

 

[Titi]

All this looks like my usual start, except that I need to build a temple before starting the pyramids (first city) and the colossus (second city).

 

[funxus]

Originally posted by Titi
All this looks like my usual start, except that I need to build a temple before starting the pyramids (first city) and the colossus (second city).

I usually try to have at least to defenders in my to be SSC, and when the city reaches size 3 I (if possible) stop growth by placing all the workers on squares like forests. Sometimes I help the city with an extra defender from another city. Temples are costy that early.

 

[Titi]

Depending on the location (forests, whales, etc...) and of course the size of the city, it's possible to have the temple built in 14 or even 10 turns...
I now play only at deity level, and it's really difficult not to have people angry without temples (at least so long as HG are not yours !)

 

[SlowThinker]

I would agree with funxus if I know what are temples.

Don't let cities grow - prefer shield over food, found new cities and go for Mike. It is more advantageous than building disreputable edifices IMHO.

 

[la fayette]

Remember that solo, the best of all players currently playing civ2, uses temples in almost any game

What is great with this game is that many different paths can lead you to victory (that is why I go on playing it after 7 years ).

 

[ElephantU]

I build temples just before switching to Republic; dont need them in early game, use Warriors to keep martial law. My current struggle is learning Early Republic...

 

[Old n Slow]

I usually build a few temples in the “big” towns late Monarchy, before Republic -- have three units being supported & Trade has yet to be discovered. I’m thinking that I’m getting around to Mike’s too late so I’ll have to work on that item as well.

 

[Lord Mohibullah]

Sounds like "Populate to Accumlate" to me.

 

[Beers]

I usually don't build temples untill i hit monarchy or start building them right before it. What is most important for me in the beginning of the game is too get pyrimad and great library. Then after that i will start throwing more time into production of temples. Then into any wonders that will make citz. contempt as my main goal is too hit demoracy as fast as i can. Then too build statue of liberity. After i have that wonder i will stick with democracy unless im overwelmned with an attack. If that happens i will switch to fundumentalist goverment and take the person out with an overwhelming force. Of course i could always go the spy route as my money supply is something crazy by then.
All the while i'm averageing new techs every 7 turns and the GL making up for my high tax rate.

Just the way i do it At least for now. I'm learning as i go and have found many good strats in these forums. I'm also playing TOT doesn't seem like alot of players play that version of it. Oh im playing the extended game in TOT.

Must say i picked the game up about 2 months ago for 9.99 and it was a steal. Excellent game just started playing it about 2 weeks ago and am hooked. Thinking about buying Civ III anyone have any comments on Civ III is it as good as Civ II ToT?

 

[GaryNemo]

Forget Civ3 - it's corrupt. I also like seeing Civ2 for sale for $9.99   Move up to the next Civ 2 difficulty level once a level seems too easy. At each new level, the "Rules" are the same, but the strategy and need for Improvements and Wonders changes.

Regarding Temples, I have no aversion to them. I think of it like this. First, I build one or at most two Settlers from my Capital, then I "favor" that city for growth. Build a Temple. That makes its Library worthwhile (I've learned to only build the one Library, maybe another if SSC is separate, rarely a third). But I do "favor" a succession of cities. Once one has its Temple, I choose another city. It grows, gets a Temple, eventually a Market and Trade Routes. Then I choose another city to favor. That way I'm not building too many improvements all at once. Most cities are building Settlers or Caravans, but can switch to Dip or Military as needed. Many Temples into Republic. In late game, a Market before the Temple for vast continuous celebration. It works for me.

 

[Titi]

Personnaly, I prefer Civ II, but that's only my opinion. You may enjoy Civ III, many players around here do !
I think there's a thread in CivII forums and another one in Civ III where you should find detailed comparisons on these games.

Then, back to the topic...
Slowthinker prefers shields over food. That's exactly how I try to play, but you'll stay limited in shields if your city doesn't grow.
That's why I have to build temples early, and coliseums as soon as I've discovered construction.
But, on the other hand, I don't use martial law, I believed that the shields needed for extra defenders are just a waste.
However, I'll have to rethink this, it seems it's not such a waste after all (according to what I read on this magnificent site)

 

[SlowThinker]

Titi,

Martial law:
A temple gives you +2 content citizens and costs 40 shield + 1 trade every turn. Similarly 2 warriors give you +2 content citizens but they cost 20 shields.
Moreover a temple needs Mysticism, temple cannot be divided into two halves (i.e. it gives you 2 content citizen also if you need only 1). Warriors also defend cities, warriors are moveable (if a city builds a settler and decreases its size then you can 'move martial law' in another city).

Shield over food
The reason why I prefer shield over food is because the economy is expanded faster by building new cities than by growing the existing ones.

Roughly you can exchange 1 food for 1 shield (moving a worker from shielded Grassland to Forest) and 2 trade for 1 shield (rushbuy). So we can define a term 'resource'=1shield=1food=2trade.
Now suppose cities are on shielded Grasslands. We can compare

a) city grow by 1:
costs 30 resources (20 food + 10 shield for martial law)
brings 1 resorce per turn (1 shield; 2 food are consumed by new citizen)

b) founding new city:
costs 40-50 resources (40 shield for Settler + 10 shield for martial law if too many cities and so the first citizen is unhappy)
brings 3.5 resource per turn (2 food + 1 shield + 1 trade on city square; the 2nd worked square in the new city was only 'moved' from the city where Settler was built, so it brings no additional resource).

 

[GaryNemo]

Excellent analysis to which I add:

A Temple costs zero once the city grows and both new serfs are on Road or River. Temples are needed for Republic - no martial law. I plan continuously for Republic - manage the home cities in Monarchy to be ready to switch. And I've learned to switch to Democracy once I get Bach, rather than await Women's Sufferage.

Fastest growth is to build new cities. YES.   When a Settler is built, you loose one population, one serf. When it founds a city, you get two serfs (city center + first citizen). Hence the ICS Infinite City Sprawl. Crude analysis, surely, but I believe in it.

Deity players prefer Forest, King players prefer Grassland growth.

 

[funxus]

I too build temples for my entrance to republic, but as ST's Martial Law shows it's much cheaper to make cities happy with martial law than with temples, which means I can concentrate more on the early wonders with ML instead of building a temple before the wonder.

 

[Dedodido]

I like to leave building temples to have them as a solution to people being unhappy. However, when I run out of things to build (which I frequently do) then I build one just for the sake of it. Question: If you build a temple when non of your citizens are unhappy, then when one of them could have been unhappy, then would they not become unhappy because of the temple? And the same with colosiums? Talking about wonders, I always go for both J.S. Bachs cathederal, and Michael Angelo's Chapel, because it helps a ton when I switch to the Republic so that I can get a load more science. I do this because it means when I discover things which let me build wonders, it lets me get a head-start on the really important ones, like the UN and the Hoover Dam. The other AI tribes always seem to switch to fundamentalism, even though it has appauling science, just to keep people happy. Which is an error IMHO

 

[ElephantU]

ST: your calculations hold for Monarchy but not Republic. Republic gives you less corruption, more cities before the first unhappy, and a LOT more trade, including bigger delivery bonus payments and bigger trade routes. At first I was a Monarchy-only player, then a Monarchy-Communism player, then I learned how to control unhappiness with Temples (cheap), Mikes & luxuries and I became a Monarchy-Republic player. Now I am learning about Early Republic for early spaceship landings (<1000AD) and it is like discovering another world, more difficult but more rewarding.