Problem: Expanding too much makes me lose.

[popejubal]

Okay, so I can win consistantly on Monarch before the most recent Warlords patch. The beginning of the game was hard, but doable. Once I got Code of Laws and Currency and started producing some courthouses where they were needed most, the game turned into a cakewalk. I'm now playing Prince with the new improved AI (yes, I hate you Blake ) and I'm consistantly getting my butt kicked.

My problem is that I need to expand more quickly and take greater advantage of the very early game to build the basis of an empire that can stand up to the vastly improved foreign empires of the later years. Before I could just have a small, efficient empire and take over a neighbor once I felt the need to expand. This meant I never had to worry about maintenance costs eating my science. My new, bigger early empires are making me fall so far behind in tech that I can't cope!

What can I do to balance expansion with advancement?
Any suggestions on how many cities I should have at various stages of the early game (e.g. no more than x cities before Bronze, y cities before Pottery, z cities before Currency/Code of Laws)?

...or is there just sometrick to the early years' gold costs that I'm just not getting?

 

[DaveMcW]

If your science is above 50%, build settlers.

If your science is below 50%, build workers and cottages.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Thread moved. It's a question, not a strategy article.

 

[cabert]

Okay, so I can win consistantly on Monarch before the most recent Warlords patch. The beginning of the game was hard, but doable. Once I got Code of Laws and Currency and started producing some courthouses where they were needed most, the game turned into a cakewalk. I'm now playing Prince with the new improved AI (yes, I hate you Blake ) and I'm consistantly getting my butt kicked.

My problem is that I need to expand more quickly and take greater advantage of the very early game to build the basis of an empire that can stand up to the vastly improved foreign empires of the later years. Before I could just have a small, efficient empire and take over a neighbor once I felt the need to expand. This meant I never had to worry about maintenance costs eating my science. My new, bigger early empires are making me fall so far behind in tech that I can't cope!

What can I do to balance expansion with advancement?
Any suggestions on how many cities I should have at various stages of the early game (e.g. no more than x cities before Bronze, y cities before Pottery, z cities before Currency/Code of Laws)?

...or is there just sometrick to the early years' gold costs that I'm just not getting?

you just need more cottages
A library and 2 scientists can give you a big boost, too.

However, I was very comfortable at monarch before the patch, and now I could just barely win a cultural with Asoka... after losing 2 or 3 times the same map (yes I restarted the same game). The patch made it really more difficult. No more cruise control at monarch...

 

[illram]

Scientist specialists provide big boosts in research for the early to mid game. In some extreme cases I've had my slider down to zero, relying entirely on specialists for my techs in order to keep the gold coming in. (In those cases you usually need to be doing caste system, which means no whipping.)

The more reasonable approach is, as mentioned previously, build libraries and run scientists where possible. The earlier this is done the better.

Don't forget to trade or sell techs: if you're researching techs not on the AI's "radar"or beelining to advanced techs (e.g., alphabet in the early game) you can trade it around to make up for all the other stuff you're missing. If the AI has, say, engineering , feudalism, optics, and music, and you research nationalism, you can trade nationalism to the AI for all of them, and maybe some cash, if there is enough AI to trade with and they're not all stingy SOB's like Shaka or something. Sell them if they don't have techs to give you. You get a) cash to keep the slider up and b) stay on par with the AI tech wise. It's quicker than doing it all yourself.

Don't get too hung up on hard and fast rules as to X numbers of cities before a certain tech, each game is different.

 

[khushranada]

I have the same problem with expansion. I found that the easiest thing to do is found a religion and make it spread, then, once you get a Great Prophet, you make the specialized religious building that gives you money from all cities with the religion. It helps finance. I was able to build eight cities in about fifty turns and not go below 100% science. at least, that's one strategy. I've basically failed at all the old Civ 3 tricks.

 

[Phrederick]

If your science is above 50%, build settlers.

If your science is below 50%, build workers and cottages.

That's the crux of it. Focus on early cottages after a couple of farms for growth, and build a settler only when you have a decent financial situation, but always build a settler if you have good finances and room to grow. Obviously that doesn't apply to every game, and there are other approaches to financing a growing empire (SE, pointy-stick expansion), but it should work.

 

[cv431410]

If your science is above 50%, build settlers.

If your science is below 50%, build workers and cottages.

That's the problem I have struggle with for a long time, what is the correct percentage? 50%? 40%, 60%?, 90%, 10%? ....

I have created a thread just for this magic number:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193598

Can someone justify the number ?????

I mean, do not just say this is the number I use, but justify your number is optimal.

 

[DaveMcW]

The number depends on your long-term strategy.

If you want the CS slingshot it's 100%.
If you want to win a peaceful space race it's 0% (income will recover when you build cottages on all that land).
If you want to go on a maceman rampage it's around 50%.

 

[cv431410]

The number depends on your long-term strategy.

If you want the CS slingshot it's 100%.
If you want to win a peaceful space race it's 0% (income will recover when you build cottages on all that land).
If you want to go on a maceman rampage it's around 50%.

True, the number depends on strategy. What you are saying is the more time you have to achieve your objectives, the lower the number can be; which I do agree.

But within a strategy, how can you justify one number is optimal analytically? For example, in my thread,

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193598

the objective is to have the maximum score at turn 100, what is the optimal number?

If objective is to have the maximum score at turn 200, what is the optimal number?

So far, the answers are:

"based on my experience", the number is ...

Verification is hard, indeed, a few experiments can help.

 

[Rashkaar]

That's the problem I have struggle with for a long time, what is the correct percentage? 50%? 40%, 60%?, 90%, 10%? ....

I have created a thread just for this magic number:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193598

Can someone justify the number ?????

I mean, do not just say this is the number I use, but justify your number is optimal.

cv, we already talked about this.

If I get 500 beakers at 0% and 400 beakers at 100%, which is better?

The question does not have an answer.

 

[cv431410]

If I get 500 beakers at 0% and 400 beakers at 100%, which is better?

The question does not have an answer.

I answered your question in my thread, apparently, you do not get it.

You need to understand what the question is first.

The question is:

give a particular objective (short term objectives for simplicity):

CS slingshot
win a peaceful space race
maceman rampage
calvery rush
maximum score at turn 100
maximum score at turn 200
...

how fast should you expand initially as measured by a particular variable (say research %, number of cities, ...)?

For various comments why one should or should not ask this question, see the original link:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193598

 

[Immaculate]

If you are on a map with lots of water and build coastal cities, the great lighthouse will let you build about 2-3 more cities (assuming foreign trade routes) at the same % research. This is an approximate of actual numbers, but i find that i can treat the great lighthouse as a weakened organized trait if i want to play my game that way.

 

[ds61514]

Define "so far behind in tech."

When you get Monarch+ being behind 4-5 techs in Medieval Age is to be expected . However, unless your opponent has a military tech AND the appropriate military resource to crush your defenses AND he decides to attack you, pulling out of a tech hole isn't that hard.

-Courthouses, Currency
-Specialists. Philo Slingshot/Liberalism is a pretty good way to close the tech gap. Great Library is also excellent.
-Pointy Stick Research: AI builds mostly Archers for city defense. When you get axes+swords, press on until opponents get Longbows; even then catas will help even the situation out. When you get Maces and Trebs and Knights, your units last until Rifling! That is a huge number of turns, more than enough to take out 1 or 2 civs.