Well, I can't say much about my game, b/c I haven't played in a while. I was wiped out by Cyrus at some point (don't remember the exact date). But, this is way above my comfort level (noble) so it was really just a shot in the dark. I didn't expand quick enough so I got stuck with only 3 cities. They were good cities, but I fell behind in techs and Cyrus finally got fed up with me pushing my culture on him. Bismark was my best friend, but he was worthless when it came time to helping me push back the invasion.
I enjoyed it while it lasted. Now, I know what I need to practice at.
I went the axe rush route and lost my whole stack in one attack on a barbarian city which contained some nuclear powered invincible archer defenders. If I'd attacked Cyrus instead, I'd be doing really well, but as it is, I am now miles behind.
Free advice (worth every penny):
If you waited so long for your "rush" that barbarian cities were founded and reached size 2 (why bother if they are still at size 1?), then you probably waited too long to actually consider it a rush.
Maybe a better term would be an axe SOD (stack of doom). Barb cities usually pose no problem as long as the multiple archers have not been promoted to city defender 1+2 etc. So the first time you attack them be sure to have about 2 axe for every archer so that you don't leave any of them alive to be promoted. Don't use the "stack attack" option; attack with best unit first; if you lost that battle see if/how much you damaged the barb archer. If you didn't damage it, your next (weaker) attacker won't either, so break off the attack, wait 1 turn and hope for better RNG luck on next turn. The barbs only need one really well-promoted archer to destroy a whole stack of axe if you aren't damaging it enough to have your next axe face a weaker archer.
Barb cities are easy if you follow those rules... and if you don't... then don't blame the RNG! (disclaimer: Eventually you'll get a feel for it and these rules will seem really stupid, because of course everything in Civ is situational-dependant).
That said, AI cities are generally better, often more poorly defended, and even also weaken your opponents if you take them. But you must assess whether you will be able to withstand the counter-attack when you go for the AI. (If there was a barb city, you can be sure Cyrus had more than one).
In this game my first kill was a barb city defended by 4 archers. Not on a hill, not across a river, etc (that's important!). I had 7 axe (aggr trait + barracks had them all promoted combat 1 + anti-arrow or city attack just before they saw any action). Seven was overkill... I didn't lose a single unit and got to further promote 4 axe. The first battle was at about 32% odds, so I was a bit lucky there. But after that, the others fell with like 60-80% odds. Now.... I have an intact highly promoted stack of axe, I wonder where I should put it?
Contender, settled in place.
2nd city between stone and what seemed to be the only decent food resources on the whole map.
3rd city on southern stone, this will get Heroic Epic, but later than 500AD.
4th city in between, not coastal but at a river with lots of forests which might get preserved one day.
Two other cities (deer/fur and pig/horse) captured from the barbs.
JC leads the world by score, but is pretty isolated as Buddhist along with Wang Kong. The rest of the world is Hindu dominated. I'm a friend of Saladin and Gilgamesh.
Techs at 500AD: Civil Service, Engineering and Paper. I didn't bother with Music. Saladin got Divine Right and everything I have, but all other AIs are 2-3 techs behind.
Wonders: Great Wall, Pyramids, Hanging Gardens, GLib, with AP & Notre Dame on the way.
Great People: Bad. Just 1 settled Spy, 1 academy, and 1 Scientist waiting to help with the Liberalism race. No National Epic.
Random Events: Worse. IIRC, I exclusively got mines and quarry destroyed over and over again.
No war until 500AD, but Cyrus looks quite agressive...
...ok, here's an info of what happens two turns after 500AD: Cyrus, the score leader, dooms himself by attacking me literally 3 turns too late. Otherwise he could have captured St.Petersburg with all its wonders. As it is now, his stack didn't even make it to my city, my mace army is growing fast, and I easily persuaded Saladin and Bismarck to attack Cyrus, that imbecile who fell from grace by leaving the true path of the Hindu not long ago.
To all of you who are tired/upset/not interested/bored of reading posts by players who whine about games being too easy: please skip this spoiler section.
Spoiler:
I have still not really understood BtS. I'm trying to learn the new stuff, and I think I've got a reasonable control of espionage, the tech tree and the corporations. I don't fully master the AI war skills (or rather lack of skills) yet since I don't understand how the AI fight. But what I definitely don't understand is why the AI is sooooo slow with research between ~500 BC and ~1000 AD. What has happened? I chose the challenger setting in the hope that I would have to struggle in the mid game, but I end up gifting tech long before I expected . Is it only me, or does anyone else have the feeling that BtS is easier than vanilla/warlords? I don't think it was the map/settings alone. Anyway, time to exit whine-mode and enter report-mode
I choose to go cottage economy right from the start. Settle in place, second city on stone (2925 BC), GW (2775 BC), SH (2550 BC). Going Mining, BW, Masonry, Mysticism.
As of 1000 BC, I have
5 cities (14 pop)
14/27/28 food/base hammers/beakers
5 workers, one warrior
Copper, stone, corn, deer, horse, gems
7 cottages
3 turns from alpha
My plan was to play as if I target Space Race (challenger-gauntlet), but I suspected I could not stay off the war path . I got the +2 health bonus, and a -1 relation from Cyrus. I like these random events, both the good and bad. The +2 health was a great boost throughout the game, and the -1 relation messed up my peaceful space race plans . Cyrus DoW me 235 AD. I had the opportunity to bribe Bismarck into war with Cyrus a few turns earlier, and if I had I done so, I would probably achieved a reasonable early space victory. As it now happened, I had to take a detour in the tech path, and also build units for ~30 turns (plus using the whip a bit ).
Does anyone know if/what trade deals will prevent an AI to attack you? I tried to setup deals regularly (within 10 turns), but I'm not sure if it's possible to prevent a war in a similar way as a player is prevented from DoW within 10 turns of a deal.
I managed to fend of Cyrus stack since he insisted to reduce my cultural defense before attacking. During these turns, I managed to reinforce my border city with a couple of spears, which he suicided on.
As of 505 AD, I have
8 cities (55 pop)
14/89/143 food/base hammers/beakers
7 workers, 26 units
Iron, Cow, Pig, Wheat, Dye, Fur, Wine (+above)
18 cottages
9 turns from Engineering, 16 turns to Education + 35 techs.
Share tech lead with Bismarck and Wang Kon.
Great Prophet settles in Moscow, Great Prophet => Kong Miao, 4 turns to third GP. Great General OTW to settle in Yekaterinburg.
Also build Hanging Gardens, the Pyramids and the Moai Statues.
I basically ran a cottage economy, with only two scientists in the stone/rice/corn city. Did anyone try a specialist economy/hybrid? My gut feeling is that spawning cottages was superior in this map due to the Cold Climate and the Great Wall, at least if the target is a Space Victory / Diplomatic Victory.
I had the same thoughts. I felt like the AI's were dangerous and kept up with tech early, but it seems like they fall behind either because of overexpansion or to much spending on espionage. I have other thoughts on the later part of this time but they need to be in the next spoiler.
I basically ran a cottage economy, with only two scientists in the stone/rice/corn city. Did anyone try a specialist economy/hybrid? My gut feeling is that spawning cottages was superior in this map due to the Cold Climate and the Great Wall, at least if the target is a Space Victory / Diplomatic Victory.
I ran a bit of a hybrid. I had my capitol a production city. it was in place with all mines and farms. MY second city was north of the scout placement and was a GP specialist city, it got pyramids and GL later and ran 4-5 specalists at 500AD plus the two from GL. the rest were all cottage cities except berlin which was a chop farm.
I basically ran a cottage economy, with only two scientists in the stone/rice/corn city. Did anyone try a specialist economy/hybrid? My gut feeling is that spawning cottages was superior in this map due to the Cold Climate and the Great Wall, at least if the target is a Space Victory / Diplomatic Victory.
I actually ran almost a completely specialist economy, although 2 of my 6 cities (at 445 AD) started cottages since they weren't near fresh water sources and they were better cities for slow-growing cottaging... did need minimal commerce to pay for military...
I could run at 40% science about, baseline, but it fluctuated between 40-100% on average through tech trades for money. My beaker rate at 100% was 270 bpt, and about 179 bpt at 40%.
So the average was somewhere between there, probably about 220. At 0% I run 127 bpt just from specialists.
At that point I had got 4 great people, 2 scientists, 1 engineer, and 1 spy, with another GS coming in 7 turns to be used for printing press most likely. One scientist was used for an academy and one was sitting idle for education, which I would have otherwise researched in about 20 turns.
The thing is, I'm not aiming for space race whatsoever. So at this point I am nearing the end of my effective important "tech tree", the end being military tradition, rifling, and nationalism, and steel, for cossacks, riflemen, and cannons.
So what I was most interested in was maximizing earlier research, where +6 scientists or merchants, along with key techs being researched by GS's, win hands down against cottages.
At that point conquest will give me tons of gold and fast expansion with good cities will make my economy grow quick, while running a specialist economy (cities are very easy to convert for science in a specialist economy, and I will also use the cottages that the AI grew for me.
I pondered whether to settle in place or move to the food near the Scout. In my test games I had always settled in place and in retrospect should have played a couple of games settling in the second spot. As it was my city growth was slow and I didn't/couldn't pop rush anything early. On the positive side, my research was pretty quick as I mined the Gems first. I researched BW first and when the Gems were mined I mined the Copper and then researched the wheel and roaded the Gems and Copper. At this crossroads my Scout had gone 1/2 way around the big pond and I knew all the Civs. Should I build Axes and attack one of my neighbors? I looked at Bismarck who appeared to have crappy land and decided I could always deal with him later.I wasn't 100% comfortable with this decision as he can be unpredictable. Cyrus was to the North and had the best land by far. I built an Axe and with 1 turn to go, switched/built/chopped a Barracks. I built one more Axe and sent both off wandering, starting another Axe to 1T left, then building/chopping a Settler. Both my Axes met several Barbs/animals and were promoted to +20 strength, +25 Archer/Melee and were just getting ready to get that last promotion to +25 city attack. Cyrus was growing quickly and I contemplated a Worker steal but I had so little military I hesitated. This it turns out was the wrong decision as he did not have any Copper at this point and I probably could have pillaged his lands until reinforcements arrived. But still I wanted to try a Culture win with SR as a backup. This was when the RNG decided it had enough of me and cut me down to size. Barb Axes appeared, two plain Axes, no promotions, attacked both my Axes who were fortified on wooded grass/plains. I think the odds were less than a 4% chance of victory, yeah right.. both Axes dead and so were my chances of "intervening" with Cyrus. I completed the GW shortly after this and didn't have to worry about the Barbs much
I decided to stick with my original plan as I was under the impression that Cyrus could be a good partner and was more worried about Saladin and Bismarck. I figured that the Romans were far enough away wouldn't have to worry about them. Things seemed to be going good, despite the Axeman setback and I built the Pyramids. Buddhism spread like wild fire and I converted. IIRC it was Russia, Cyrus, Bismarck, Saladin, and Wang Kong in the Buddhist block, Gilgamesh was on the fence and Rome was Hindu(?). This seemed like the perfect setup. I did build a few more Settlers and took the Horses to the SW and the Iron to the SE, seized a Barb city directly South (almost where I wanted it), a city south of city #2 and a captured Barb city to the East of Cyrus. Things were going good, my relations were excellent with Cyrus and Bismarck, and I was building Wonders and speeding along the tech path. I noticed (via a sentry Scout), that Cyrus started sending Immortals and Cats to his city closest to me. I built several Spears and Axes and gave away some techs to get better relations and signed a resource for gpt with Cyrus. He seemed to be undecided but about 15 turns later he attacked. So much for "Pleased" relations meaning much. I was at "Pleased with Gilgamesh, Saladin, Bismarck, and Cyrus. No one would come to my aid, Bismarck was the only one who would consider it but wouldn't act for what I had to offer. I repelled Cyrus and after ~15 turns I gave him some lower level tech for peace as I wanted to get back on track and knew he could eventually wear me down, with his bigger empire, or bribe someone else into the war. Rome who had been at war with Sumeria settled for peace with them and then 10 turns later appeared on my borders. Unfortunately for him, his SOD (10 HA, 3 Cats, 2 Spears) was no match for my Attackers who wiped the floor with him. He settled for peace a little bit later
At this point I am trying to get back ahead with techs and pondering a change from cultural to SR or UN as a back up. The only wars that I know of so far have been: Rome/Sumeria, Russia/Persia, and Russia/Rome.
So far the start seemed easier than the typical Immortal game, but i think it has been a function of the map type and not the skill of the human player (well, in my case anyhow)
Since this is only my 2nd BTS game (BOTM 8 being the first), I figured I'd try a few things, see if I could figure out something about BTS and just have a good time, so...
Contender save. Let's go early wonder hogging.
Settled in place. 2nd city on stone (2925BC), 3rd city North of Rice/Corn, near Copper+cow (1975BC), 4th City south by copper, cow and stone (1900BC), 5th city by iron (260 BC).
Built Great Wall (2500 BC) and Pyramids (1325 BC) in Moscow
SH (2400 BC) in St. pete and Oracle (1450 to get COL) in Novogorod
(Later also built Ap Palace, Angkor Wat and Uni of Sankore by 505 AD)
Played off some sort of Hybrid Economy, and was pretty much at 100% reasearch from the midgame out running only a minor deficit, financed easily by selling techs around.
Cyrus quickly converted to Confu, and before I was ready to declare a statereligion the bugger decided to DOW me. After a few unfavorable rolls I lost Novogorod, but recaptured before it got out of resistance. Then sued for peace after a weakish attempt at a counterattack that really lead nowhere. Pretty quickly got into Confu as well.
Decided to try how the Ap. Palace worked, so the early game was dedicated towards spreading confu around, but more on that in spoiler #2.
I choose to go cottage economy right from the start. Settle in place, second city on stone (2925 BC), GW (2775 BC), SH (2550 BC). Going Mining, BW, Masonry, Mysticism.
As of 1000 BC, I have
5 cities (14 pop)
14/27/28 food/base hammers/beakers
5 workers, one warrior
Copper, stone, corn, deer, horse, gems
7 cottages
3 turns from alpha
To all of you who are tired/upset/not interested/bored of reading posts by players who whine about games being too easy: please skip this spoiler section.
Spoiler:
I have still not really understood BtS. I'm trying to learn the new stuff, and I think I've got a reasonable control of espionage, the tech tree and the corporations. I don't fully master the AI war skills (or rather lack of skills) yet since I don't understand how the AI fight. But what I definitely don't understand is why the AI is sooooo slow with research between ~500 BC and ~1000 AD. What has happened? I chose the challenger setting in the hope that I would have to struggle in the mid game, but I end up gifting tech long before I expected . Is it only me, or does anyone else have the feeling that BtS is easier than vanilla/warlords? I don't think it was the map/settings alone. Anyway, time to exit whine-mode and enter report-mode
Yes BTS is significantly easier at immortal / deity than warlords/vanilla. The AI gets so much less bonuses it is not funny. Yes the AI is improved somewhat but it still sucks in so many ways... Warlord and noble is actually harder but none of the established players actually notice obviously... If you've followed strategy and tips you can see that beating immortal is no longer a feat and most people can do that if they just focus on their game a bit. There are also quite a large amount of players that can win quite consistently at deity, which obviously wasn't possible in warlords/vanilla...
Yes BTS is significantly easier at immortal / deity than warlords/vanilla. The AI gets so much less bonuses it is not funny. Yes the AI is improved somewhat but it still sucks in so many ways... Warlord and noble is actually harder but none of the established players actually notice obviously... If you've followed strategy and tips you can see that beating immortal is no longer a feat and most people can do that if they just focus on their game a bit. There are also quite a large amount of players that can win quite consistently at deity, which obviously wasn't possible in warlords/vanilla...
I think you need to separate warlords and vanilla if making that comparison. In Warlords, the AI kept the same bonuses while becoming a fair bit more 'intelligent', and I find as a result that on monarch level and above, Warlords is significantly harder than vanilla. Personally, on vanilla I can usually easily win monarch, and have a fighting chance on immortal; on Warlords I have been known to lose at monarch, and I've never so far been able to win Warlords immortal.
My understanding is that when BtS was released, Firaxis wanted to return to approximately the vanilla difficulties, hence the reduction in AI bonuses. ISTM they succeeded; the BtS games I've played (admittedly for the most part, rarely beyond around 500AD) do seem more comparable to vanilla in difficulty than to Warlords, although the ideal strategy details are obviously different, because the AI behaves differently. Of course I have a lot less experience at BtS than I do at vanilla and Warlords (since setting the games means I don't get to play them ), so perhaps that is skewing my perceptions a bit.
And having said all that, I notice that the BOTM 09 results show about 60% victories, which is not far off what I'd expect to see on vanilla emperor level GOTMs, so perhaps there is something in BtS being easier?
I *think* your data for BTS is "additional settlers" while your data for Vanilla is "starting number of settlers". If that's right, then there are no differences between Vanilla and BTS.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Is it only me, or does anyone else have the feeling that BtS is easier than vanilla/warlords? I don't think it was the map/settings alone. Anyway, time to exit whine-mode and enter report-mode 
. I got the +2 health bonus, and a -1 relation from Cyrus. I like these random events, both the good and bad. The +2 health was a great boost throughout the game, and the -1 relation messed up my peaceful space race plans 
I completed the GW shortly after this and didn't have to worry about the Barbs much
), so perhaps that is skewing my perceptions a bit.
