No copper on Emperor = dead?

[aelf]

I know this has been talked about and strategies devised around it. But my personal experiences seem to argue against the ease with which solutions are offered.

I am fed up. Iron working takes eons to research (with plunder money), time which I could've spent getting Alphabet and other useful builder technologies. Chariots can take a few cities, but when a third party with Swordsmen and Axemen comes (appearing just as I discover IW) I am toast. Not enough time to hook up iron and about to lose 1 or 2 out of the few cities I have.

This is what happened in my last game. I've had to unscrupulously reload a few times to save myself from getting trashed. If I only I could have the usual axemen.

I've been sounding angsty, I know. But Monarch is no challenge while Emperor is very frustrating.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Umm...don't warmonger unless you have a definate military advantage? It's fine to go conquer things while chariots are hot stuff, but if you find yourself lacking copper while your opponents don't, don't fight them. Peace-monger until you get some iron, or conquer specificly with the aquisition of metals in mind.

If you are in such dire financial straits that you can only fund your research with conquest money, you may already have plenty of cities, and so stearing away from war won't hurt too much.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." -Sun Tzu

 

[aelf]

But the problem is I can't have peace when I'm boxed in, can I? Need some happiness resources, no matter what. Taking out the neighbour who only has archers is simple. The third party who declared on me was Genghis, though. Peace was not an option in any way.

There's something I don't understand. I always need plunder money to research when I only have like 3 or 4 cities. That hardly sounds like too many cities to me.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Hmm. If you post a save, I can look over it and give you better advice than just quoting old proverbs.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

If you have Horses, you should be fine with heading to Horse Archers. I wouldn't bother much with (non-UU) Chariots on Emperor; their job is scouting and fighting off the Barbs.

And on Emperor, having 4 cities when you just learn Bronze Working is clearly too much. If you're neither ORG nor FIN, 2 or 3 cities serve you way better in the initial phase (that is, before the first war).

 

[aelf]

Ok, here's some saves. Anyway, I need some professional advice to help me improve my gameplay. The first is just before I launch my 1st war. The second is my last save, possible because I reloaded to find some way to save myself and oddly enough this time Genghis paid me gold for peace before he had his metal armies instead of refusing completely.

Usually I have about 2 cities up before I do my axemen/chariot rush, in the process of which I capture 1 or 2 cities. I fight my first war very early. I usually get Stonehenge and then start building axes till I have about 7 or 8. Then I declare on my nearest neighbour.

I think there may be something wrong with how I play. With only 4 cities I am paying a lot of maintenance. I slowly consolidate to the point where I can research properly then slowly expand. This way, by 1000 AD I never have more than 6 cities. Often 5. Is this too slow? And I am getting out-teched like mad, usually by off-continent AIs. I am depending a lot on the AIs fighting each other (I never have anything to bribe them with) so that they ****** their own progress. w/o the gold mine in my capital or second city, games seem to become hopeless. If there's not even copper, then...

 

[Hans Lemurson]

You seriously neglected initial growth and expansion, but since you were relying on Greece to do that for you, I guess it's ok. Orleans was built in a poor location though, there were a lot better candidate locations around at the time. You razed Sparta and Athens instead of making these the jewels of your empire. If you totally neglect your own growth, you should be keeping the enemy cities you capture, or at least the really good ones.

You also sorta started your conquest a little late, and in fact were behind expansion schedule had you colonized the area peacefully. For 865 BC, your holdings were, frankly, pathetic.

As for managing you conquests, you did an adequate job except for one main area: FOOD! Cities do not grow big and powerful without having access to large quantities of food. One of the most important things for a production powerhouse is a large food supply, since production-heavy tiles tend to be food poor. Larger cities are richer and more powerful and productive. Thermopylae is mostly unable to work a lot of its production tiles. Food-wealthier Paris is able to match Thermopylae's production output, because it can work more tiles. In many areas, where you would have been better advised to build farms, you built cottages instead. PHARSALOS ISN"T EVEN WORKING IT'S GOLD MINES!!! (that's what the city's primary focus should be: workin' the gold.) Now I'm not necessarily anti-cottage, but if you want commerce, there are cheaper and easier ways to get it in the ancient era. You built the collossus (without copper?) yet are barely utilizing its benefits. Water tiles can deliver to you 3 commerce apiece, equivalent to a village or a hamlet on a river. What sea can't provide you though is your food surplus (since your fish are out of range). You should farm the land and work the sea if you want commerce. Orleans should have farms on its grassland, and be working the sea, it could easily be size 8 or 9 and pulling in a base commerce of around 20. By the looks of the town nearby it, the city has been under-utilized for quite a long while. Paris should have a Lighthouse, since that will provide a +1 food bonus to the lake as well.

Your economic problems are caused not by too many cities, but by too few and too small cities. Your economy is wea not because of financial drain but because of lack of finances. It is 1200 AD and you are researching Feudalism. You are 10 technologies behind Asoka. All of this occured not because of a lack of copper or anything, but because of a lack of size.

I might be way off if it was in fact someone else who razed Athens, but I suspect it was you.

 

[malekithe]

The first thing that jumps out at me about your 875 BC save is the lack of many useful tile improvements. While your road network is very nice, it's not doing a thing for your economy. By that point, with only two cities, you need maybe 4 tiles of road total. That's a lot of extra worker turns wasted. Why are you working forest tiles? They're just not an efficient enough source of hammers to be relied upon. If a city doesn't have any hills, your two options are farms to pop-rush, or cottages and grow the empire to some place with hills. If it has forests, that's just gravy; toss them on the fire to speed expansion.

Now, you have been the victim of a little bad luck. The two fish one tile outside Paris' fat cross is unfortunate and something I would have been kicking myself about. Greece settling its first two cities directly at you and before you got out your first settler is annoying, but you could have probably been quicker with that settler if you'd chopped a few forests in its production.

In 875, the reason your finances suck is mostly due to a) you're working almost 0 commerce-producing tiles and b) over half of your expenses are military spending. The chariots are pretty, and I'm sure they'll do a nice job of rolling over the greeks (at great loss, that city is on a hill with walls), but you can't support that kind of army right now. I've never waged an effective war of conquest with chariots. They're great for denying crucial resources, but that's about all I'd use 'em for. You just need too many to wage an effective conquest. Also, you've got 4 warriors; disband at least 2 of them and you can move your research slider up another notch or two.

You are very much pinned in, and aggression seems to be the only way out. The land to the southeast just can't support very many profitable cities. You need the land Greece is currently occupying. However, I really would have spent more time growing my economy and teching to iron working or horseback riding instead of attempting to amass chariots.

I didn't take a look at the second save, as I figure you've got things to work on in your opening and can progress from there. Besides, it looks like Hans covered it a little. (You razed Sparta!?!?)

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Well, I played it. I made some mistakes I'll admit, but I was able to all but destroy the greeks by about 400 BC. In retrospect, I should have kept Thermopylae, but I had this grandiose vision in my head of building a city SW of it to get fish. I suffered from the lack of production it would have provided, as well as the ivory for my growth.

I also got too cocky after my capture of Athens and went and took a Barbarian city to the north. I then realized the meaning of "over-expansion". I should have either razed it or ignored it.

I also should have completely annihilated the greeks in one swell foop. Delphi has Iron, and is on a hill, so is valuable and defensible. At one point I faced the choice of taking Delphi or Athens, and I took Athens. Delphi probably would have been the better choice, moving on to Athens second.

It appeared that the mongols had no horses, do an Expeditionary force into their territory might have been able to cut off their Iron.

After having played this save with 20/20 hidsight, I have a little more respect for your having survived against the mongols (I did too, but I'm not sure I could have won the war. Wouldn't have died, but it still ruined me). You still did make several mistakes, the most critical ones were in the pre-save period; delays etc. Also your exploration was rather lacking...it is much harder to fight a war against an unseen enemy with unknown land, and more contacts allows better trade.

I believe I could turn your 875BC save into a winning game...maybe, but I think I might have spoiled it with too much fore-hand knowledge like "where's the iron".

By the way, how was it that you were able to get Genghis to sign a Peace Treaty? I tried and tried to get one, since I had no interest what so ever in further war, but he constantly refused. The only thing I really did differently was I started the war I belive 2 turns later than you, targeting the more vulnerable Sparta first instead of the nearby Thermopylae. Sparta was a very fine city once it expanded to encompass the rice, working that gold saved my ass. I still had to abandon Athens to be razed by the mongols though.

How do you suppose Genghis and Alex got so buddy-buddy? The entire thing would be a breeze if the Mongols just minded their own buisiness during the endeavor. One of your best moves was founding Confucianism. How did you accomplish this? In my game, Confucianism was founded in 385 BC, whereas you were able to found it yourself in 280BC. How did you get it so early? Great Propet? Perhaps I dawdled too much in the aquisition of Iron-working as well.

 

[aelf]

Good comments, there. Thanks a lot to both of you. I suppose I was rather sloppy this game. And, I just realised, in my current game too, where I seem to be heading towards a diplomatic victory. The same kind of slow progress, the causes of which you have illuminated kind of plagued me, but this time I had copper, allies and a better research tactics.

Maybe I am too used to cottage spamming? I just thought that since cities hit their resource-induced max size quite fast I might as well work those cottages into towns.

But I suppose I need to defend myself a bit? I am not that dumb. Undoubtedly, Paris was in an okay position, being the starting location. But Orleans was not my choice. Having no copper, I felt I had to secure those horses and built my city at the best place I thought possible.

About not chopping early, this was my first time playing the new patch and I read how everyone said you could scale down on your chopping a bit early on so I did just that. And found that Greece settled some land so near me damn quickly. I was boxed in and had to settle for Orleans, being unable to snag the horses in the north.

You must also consider the factor of uncertainty. I didn't know a lot of things you know as you look at the saves. The periods before and in between were in flux. I decided I couldn't keep a lot of cities because I feared Genghis, who was declaring war on me soon after each peace treaty expired. I kept Thermopylae because it was near Paris. I kept Pharsalos because it was a holy city. The other city I founded for that one iron resource.

Yes, the Greeks founded Confucianism, not me. Once my armies were ripe I took Pharsalos and razed cities that threaten it culturally, thinking that I got my prize, which I can confidently defend. I used my prophet to build a shrine there. I thought this would help me a lot. Not enough, I guess. And it never stopped Genghis from trying to kill me. In fact, he sent a lot of his guys at the holy city, that greedy dog. He wasn't very buddy with Alex. He declared on me once I have that -1 for declaring on Alex. He just wanted a piece of me, and I don't think that's hard to believe considering him.

About getting him to sign peace, well, I think he got fed up that I am killing so many of the archers he sent and decided to end it. Lol. Maybe it's just that I gave a better appearance of strength at that time (assuming the AI can only see what's at your borders)?

 

[aelf]

Here's another save, from a different game where I started with no copper and no horses nearby. I didn't even have early happiness resources. I did have stone, which I used to help me get Pyramids for the +2 happiness in Representation.

I settled 2 cities (Orleans and Lyons) then grew my cities, patiently waiting for IW. I researched it right after Masonry, if I remember correctly. Once I hooked up my iron I built about 4 swordsmen and 8 axemen, whom I marched into Kublai's territory. I razed two cities to my east and one to the north. I razed the two because I wanted to settle one city between them in a better position (Rheims, I think). The city to the north I razed because I worried about it getting overwhelmed culturally.

When things are settled down, I planted a city on the site of the last razed city (Tours). Kublai settled a city near it (which I am about to attack in this save), which started to eat into my city's borders such that it doesn't have any food tile for it to grow. What's more Isabella settled one city on the desert just for the stone resource and culture bombed, overwhelming both Tours and Rheims. I retaliated with my own artist in Tours, which allowed me to gain back the copper but failed to push Kublai's borders back (see, Creative is a good trait). Of course what she did was annoying, so I eventually razed that city and captured Salamanca.

I still haven't gone much further than the other game. My production is better, but I am desperately poor. My cities are all at their happiness/health caps and I have some developed cottages on flood plains. I also have a few markets and courthouses built. For some reason though, my income at 0% research is way lower than my expenses at 100%, which I find unacceptable. And I am out-teched by everybody by an eon.

I need further advice here. I tried growing my cities better and expanding as well as I could (which was only constrained by the distance to the nearest enemy city and the number of units I had). Even such a modest army seems to be making me pay through my nose. Maybe it's cause this time I have no holy city? But what should I do then? Just expand some more? I know Tours and Salamanca is a drain on my treasury, but I felt Tours was a potentially good city site and I captured Salamanca because I felt pressured to expand. Any advice?

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Ok, I've looked at your save.

Salamanca was a waste, worthless. You should have razed it. It has pigs (which are outside of current borders), coast, and that's about it. Tours is ok though, but is too close to Tabriz. In case you didn't notice, Tabriz pwns Tours. Conquer Tabriz and Tors will be fine, they can evenly split their 4-tile overlap between them.

I do have one major objection though. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY, EXPLORE YOUR SURROUNDING TERRITORIES!!!!!

There, I said it. Exploration brings contact with more people sooner, let's you judge your rivals strength better, and determine where to attack. It's cheap too, all it takes is about 2 units dedicated to galomphing around until all blackness is gone from your continent. Trading world maps helps too (but you need paper of course). The more you have explored, the more your land is worth. It requires open borders, sure, but you're hopefully not going to be at war with all of your neighbors.

As for being behind in techs and such, I would say it's because you've just sat on your economicly inferior ass for the last 1,000 years. If your rivals look like they are going to be getting too powerful, you need to go and take them out, and take their cities. Your military is using up 1/6 of your economy, you should using it to increase your economy. Kublai Khan, the lowliest of the AIs here, has 3 times your GNP. This is partly due to his lavish gem deposits, (which incidentally would help you with your luxury shortage as well), but also because he had soft land which he was able to develop into a rich cottage-haven. He also has large sugar supplies. He lacks though, the impressive production capabilities that you have. You should have conquered him long ago.

Not just razed a couple cities and call for peace either, you should have conquered his entire darned empire. It's so rich that it would easily pay for itself. Luxury resources are very much worth starting wars over. You seem a little hesitant to conquer large numbers of cities, but this isn't really grounded in much reality. Conquering empires is like eating a big meal, you just have to slow down and digest it for a while, but afterwards you'll be doing marvelously. Just make sure that you don't get interrupted in the process. That's what screwed you over in the copperless game, the fact that the mongols attacked you too. Had that not occured, you could have been a nice happy imperial ruler.

You also need to focus your military more; you're generally not going to need more than 1 unit in your core cities, and so the rest can be dedicated to your offensive efforts. Orleans has 3 units in it; 2 units that could be used in a war. You also built too many spearmen. Unless you are facing a huge mounted assault, or lots of war elephants, you can make due with about 3 of them. They just need to be able to slaughter any mounted unit that comes near, and since they usuallys fight winning battles, their casualties are consequently low. The don't rally need to many combat promotions to do their job effectively, and so make good medics.

But anyways, your difficulties lie in 3 main areas: You are a militarist who is afraid of empire. You don't explore and scout out your world, and consequently fight blind. Exploration also opens up new trade-routes faster. You need to work on the intricacies of empire maneagement, such as managing the growth of your cities (why is Tours only size 2?) and the specialization of your cities. Both Paris and Orleans are trying to be production power-houses at the same time as they are economic power-houses. You also have several areas that are cottaged but un-worked, and Paris is far short of its size-13 population limit. Your empire is under-utilized. Your total food production in all your cities is 89. Your rival worst is 130, and your rival average is 170, double what you have. I was also able, through trade negotiations and re-assigning workers, to increase your base commerce from 110 to 130.

You do have a very good start position though, rich enough to fund an imperial war, and productive enough to win them. I'd like to see a much earlier save, to see what the situation was back then, so I can more fairly and adequately judge your progress.

 

[omni_paul]

The other important point to remember about exploration is that contact with other leaders decreases the cost of researching techs they already have. Critical on the higher levels.

 

[Mutineer]

well, this is example no coper and I think no houses game.
Actially I am not sure what to do next.

Anyone mind to give me an advice or opinion will be apriciated.

 

[Penguin?]

contact with other leaders decreases the cost of researching techs they already have.

Really? This is did NOT know.

 

[aelf]

Thanks for all the advice! I've definitely improved a lot. I learnt not to cottage spam before growing my cities, better specialization and better warmongering. Results can be seen in my current game where I am simply running away. Waiting to win either space race or diplomatic (although I would much prefer the latter because it's much earlier).

I wasn't afraid of conquests in this game. I went all out to conquer the Aztecs and then the Greeks, netting a very holy city as my first trophy. I've been the biggest empire for a long time. And this is the first time my cities actually hit 20+ pop so early. In my concious efforts to grow my cities, I made them emphasize growth until they reached their limits. I am beginning to see why pop = power.

Well, to sum it up, I learnt the proper ropes to play on Emperor

 

[acidsatyr]

Always research mining->bronze w. ->iron w. if you see there’s no bronze. While not having bronze on emperor is rather survivable, not having bronze on immortal is a disaster. Bronze is the most important starting resource...

 

[aelf]

I don't find it feasible, though, simply because IW takes so long to research initially and you're passing up worker techs that will help your empire's development. Now I'm thinking if you should just concentrate on expanding and defending your border cities with archers if you have no bronze since it would be bad to be boxed in with no hope of conquest early on.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The other important point to remember about exploration is that contact with other leaders decreases the cost of researching techs they already have. Critical on the higher levels.

Not true. Research time depends on the number of Civs knowing a particular tech, but not on your contacts.
It was that way in as you describe it in Civ3, but was deliberately changed in CIV.

 

[junior7]

Not true. Research time depends on the number of Civs knowing a particular tech, but not on your contacts.
It was that way in as you describe it in Civ3, but was deliberately changed in CIV.

Technology formula bonus for civs knowing tech you are researching is based on your contacts who know tech divided by total civs - refer 'Technology Research explained...' by Requies. Civs knowing the tech you do not have contact with provide no bonus so get those contacts, as omni_paul suggested.