Question: Best strategy for having a sprawling empire?

Askthepizzaguy

Know the Dark Side
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
7,796
Location
Norway
Greetings all. This is my first post on this forum.

I personally favor a style of play which is probably pretty bad against humans, but works ok against the AI: I like to expand and expand. I'd like to hear from you and see if there's any suggestions you might have to improve this strategy.

First off, I tend to go for a civilization that starts with mysticism. This way I can research meditation as my very first discovery (to block the AI from getting Buddhism, while giving myself a starting religion). Then I gamble on Polytheism. It's rare that I don't get Hinduism as well, but I usually limit the game to 7 civs, on higher numbers you are virtually guaranteed not to get Hinduism. No bother, because if you try to get 5 out of 6 religions, you can do without Hinduism. Next I'll be researching to get Judaism, and with Oracle, I get Theology or Code of Laws so that I nab one religion while working on the second. The only one I don't try to get exclusively to myself is Islam because it takes so long to get there and my tech tree is already religion-heavy. I still try to get it if I can, but I don't strain myself.

Worst case scenario, I have 4 religions. Now I choose the civic which allows me to make missionaries without monasteries, and I spread all my faiths to all my cities. Now I have the cultural benefits of multiple religions (sometimes I don't choose a state religion, so I get maximum cultural benefit, and use temples instead for the happiness bonuses).

I try to get as many great prophets as possible, and build wonders that assist in this. Now I build as many holy shrines as possible, starting with the most propagated faith down to the least. This nets me extra gold per turn for all the cities in my empire.

Meanwhile, I've expanded my empire to as many cities as I can without destroying my science slider entirely. Often I will have to temporarily lower my science to prevent bankruptcy.

I try to get a leader with the trait (organized?) that allows me to build courthouses so as to reduce the maintenance penalties.

With the high cultural production from having multiple faiths, the financial boost to cover my immediate penalties, and the ability to produce courthouses faster, I tend to have many more cities than my AI counterparts. The problem with this strategy is that you can't focus too much on many of your existing cities, because they are producing missionaries, settlers, and workers, as well as temples and temples and monasteries and temples and monasteries. And unless you further bog down your empire with a city exclusively focused on military production, you're uber vulnerable during your early expansion. Any militaristic faction is your worst nightmare. On the plus side, you generally won't have to worry about religious hatred toward your faction because you have no state religion, or you can convert easily to a neighbor's religion without too much penalty.

Where the strategy really takes off is on bigger maps in the late/middle game. Once you discover communism and the maintenance penalties become non-existent, you have a new boom in city building and a giant sudden source of revenue.

At this point, I tend to role-play as the Borg Collective. One massive, communist empire that is too powerful to ignore, with new settlements spawning at a rate that will make your head spin, and seemingly endless amounts of cash.

Getting to communism is the entire battle. Once there, half of your empire can focus on expansion through settlements, and the other half can focus on building a MASSIVE army to take over the entire world. You could harass everyone on the board with ships and pillaging before you even bother with a main invasion. Use the cultural benefits of your empire to expand your borders into enemy territory through "flipping" until you can conquer by force.

Apologies if this strategy has been posted elsewhere, I came up with this independently.

Now, my question...

How would YOU improve this strategy of mega-expansionism in spite of maintenance costs? What would you add to this? Suggestions, questions, comments, all are welcome.
 
If you want to go with your general strat limit your empire size to 9 cities (standard map/adjust for map size) and pursue a cultural victory.

Otherwise there is no need for so many religions, temples, monasteries.

Keeping your empire smaller will mean cheaper overall maintenance costs.

Also, diplomacy is your best defence. Gift techs to aggressors and give in to any and all demands. If you have a choice, prefer to tick off someone like Mansa/Gandhi who is unlikely to attack you rather than Monty/Shaka who WILL attack you. With proper diplomacy it is possible to win cultural with only 1 warrior per city defending.

However, having 1 dedicated city producing military units will increase your power graph and help your diplomacy a lot as well.

In order to pay the bills early on don't delay pottery (cottages), currency (trade routes/markets), and col (courthouses/forbpalace) early on.
 
Spoiler :
If you want to go with your general strat limit your empire size to 9 cities (standard map/adjust for map size) and pursue a cultural victory.

Otherwise there is no need for so many religions, temples, monasteries.

Keeping your empire smaller will mean cheaper overall maintenance costs.

Also, diplomacy is your best defence. Gift techs to aggressors and give in to any and all demands. If you have a choice, prefer to tick off someone like Mansa/Gandhi who is unlikely to attack you rather than Monty/Shaka who WILL attack you. With proper diplomacy it is possible to win cultural with only 1 warrior per city defending.

However, having 1 dedicated city producing military units will increase your power graph and help your diplomacy a lot as well.

In order to pay the bills early on don't delay pottery (cottages), currency (trade routes/markets), and col (courthouses/forbpalace) early on.

Well, to each his own.

We obviously have radically different playing styles. In order to do much of what you suggest, I pretty much have to scrap my entire strategy plan.

The idea behind my strategy is that I can have a sprawling empire by the time communism rolls around, allowing me to jump far ahead of the pitiful AI in terms of science, trade, production, you name it. Having an empire twice the size of your neighbor with a "core empire" at relatively the same level as your neighbor's entire empire is a significant advantage, especially on bigger maps where prolonged wars are a risky gamble for victory.

In order to get there, though, I need to build the foundation early. I can't wait until communism to have a sudden growth spurt, other civilizations are expanding near my territory and will block me in. In order to generate an empire of epic proportions early on in the game, my main enemy is not the AI, but my own maintenence costs. In fact, with clever diplomacy, the AI becomes a substitute for much of the science production I miss out on at lower research percentages.

With so many religions and holy shrines in my possession, I can have a much greater empire under my control than a civilization without more than one. The maintenence costs for cities about ten or 15 spaces from my capital is only 3 gold per turn, and with 4 religions, I'm still turning a profit, minus my civics.

As for cultural victory, that remains an option, especially with so many cities and so much culture produced in each one. I can pick and choose which cities I use for culture, and which I use for science, which for gold, etc.

Once I get communism, rolling out a massive army in no time flat becomes very simple. I can use my capital city to pump out defensive troops and replace all those warriors. Now my power graph shows how painfully the AI is losing. With cultural, scientific, military, territorial, and economic advantages, the only way to lose at this point is through incompetence.

The key really is maintaining good relations and trade partnerships with all my neighbors and banking on their peaceful nature until the industrial revolution. Then I can properly defend myself, fully entrenching my supreme civilization and out-producing and out-smarting the AI to victory. I can nab the United nations and try to force a diplomatic victory, aim for a cultural victory, try for the space race (which I would easily win), or try to negotiate a territorial victory through conquest in the late game. All of which is possible through the early lead in territory, which translates into a massive empire mid-game.

It's all about fighting those maintenence costs.

Of course, I could abandon that strategy and stick to 9 cities... but it puts me into a purely defensive military situation, abandons the territory race, loses the science race in the long term, abandons the space race, and leaves a culutral victory possible but not a sure bet.

My personal strategy is to keep open as many roads to victory as possible. I want to be able to hold off a large empire attacking me late game (which is always possible no matter how popular you are, especially on harder levels), be able to force a scientific lead, force a territorial lead, force economic supremacy, and the extra population doesn't hurt a diplomatic victory, should I choose that route.

But like I said, to each his own. You may have perfected your strategy in ways I can't predict. And it's entirely possible if we pitted them head to head yours might win, because you could take advantage of my early game weak military. A blitz attack could decimate my fast expansion strategy.

However, I do prefer having more roads to victory than attempting a pacifist/cultural victory. It's a strong defensive strategy, to be sure. But there's no guarantee that another civilization won't beat you arms-wise or science-wise, once you stop your expansion. I've noticed the AI tends to keep expanding at a steady rate until the map is full, and if you're not careful, they can start to rapidly overtake you in the science race. They also have the ability to attempt to pierce your armor with better weapons technology and a much more massive assault force.

In other words, it's a trade off. Do you take your biggest gamble early on in the game, when everyone is relatively weak, and have a massively strong endgame; or do you play it safe in the opening and then bet everything on a cultural victory in the endgame, with not enough strength to hold off two or more nations attacking you?

It's in the endgame that the AI gets the most desperate. That's when the backstabbings become rampant. I prefer to have an impenetrable defense, or better yet, be the aggressor in a superior position at that stage of the game. This is something I can bank on with the "early expansion" strategy.

Each point of view has it's strengths and weaknesses. I would go as far as to say your strategy can hold up under pressure even when behind, whereas my house of cards would crumble if I were attacked too early. However, I definitley have to give myself the edge in the endgame.

This is a good topic. I hope to hear from more of you!
 
How many cities do you generally hope to have around 1 AD with this strategy?

It varies widely, depending on the game speed, map size, and territory. Hard question to answer.

I try to surround my first city with 5 or 6 right off the bat, because of the low maintenence cost of being right next to the capital. By then I've scouted the continent at large, and I know which direction to expand in. Once I have code of laws (caste system?) I use the ability to make instant merchants in my new cities to cut down on their cost, and then slowly improve their territory with workers until I can afford to remove the merchant. I spread my religions and continue to expand. Once my larger cities can support a merchant or two, I start to rapidly expand. This is when I go into "debt" by borrowing from my science meter to support my empire. The gambit usually pays off, especially if I can trade technologies with my neighbors while boxing them in.

I don't start to really feel the pain until I've hit 15-20 cities, which is when I need science to start bailing me out, but by then my empire has expanded to the point where I can easily maintain my science with a high rate and buffer that with scientists, while taking only 10% or 20% in taxes, a good balance.

However, with different map sizes and different game speeds, I cannot tell you how many cities I have by AD 1.

I play on epic, because marathon is pretty much nothing but hitting return 25 times between events, which is boring, and I use a huge map size. But there are too many variables to give you a good target number. Basically twice as many as you would normally have, if not more.
 
When I played my warlords marathon (huge maps also but marathon speed) I sort of accidently got into this type of game, lots of religions and a sprawling empire. After awhile it took care of itself as far as maintenance, just need courthouses everywhere, several shrines, a well placed forbidden palace, and communism. I think I had between 40-50 cities, not close to a domination victory though. Teching was insanely fast and those games were easy spaceship victories.

It was not always easy to do though and depended on neighbors. Also Getting the relgions are a big risk because you are putting yourself at a high risk. Not a strategy discussed on this forum (most here seam to have a problem spamming early religions) but it works, at least at Prince level. Monarch on Warlords was always a big chellenge for me and I don't this would work as well on higher levels are other discussed strats.
 
If you're playing on Huge maps with a limited number of civs, you have already given yourself a leg up for this strategy. I assume you have a large number of "picket" fog-busters or build the Great Wall to deal with the barbarians.

The multi-religion strategy works well with the BtS Wonder Swedegon Paya (sp), which grants access to any religious civic -- hello, Free Religion! This civic works great with your game plan and really helps avoid unnecessary wars while boosting your tech. It does require you to build monasteries, though, to build missionaries, since you'd have to give up Organized Religion.

Your strategy will start to be impacted at higher difficulty levels and also when you stop stacking the religious deck against the AI by limiting the number of civs on a huge map. It is painful to miss a religion, particularly when you could have been researching a key worker or military tech instead.
 
I agree with Bear. Seems like you have a lot more space than I'm used to having. Usually by the time I have 3 to 4 cities, at least one AI is close enough that a city next to him will conflict with a rival fat cross. I usually don't have stone before the great wall is built, so I need military for survival and then a whole lot military for a war of expansion. Thus it's rare I found a religion other than Confucianism through CoL.

It's the domino effect. Less room to expand means you need BW as soon as possible so the second or third city has bronze. This changes the whole dynamic of the game. Therefore it's much much harder to have the default, or more, AI opponents.
 
...Now I choose the civic which allows me to make missionaries without monasteries (organized religion), and I spread all my faiths to all my cities. Now I have the cultural benefits of multiple religions (sometimes I don't choose a state religion, so I get maximum cultural benefit, and use temples instead for the happiness bonuses).

If you dont have a state religion you cant run OR, well, you can but it doesnt do anything afaik. So what do you do in the case of no state religion, how do you spread all those religions?
 
I had found when starting Civ IV that the biggest habit I had to break in myself was over-expansion. I cut my teeth back in CivII when that was the best thing you could do - expand, expand, and then expand.

I've seen that Civ IV does not allow for this type of cookie-cutter play style, and I think that if rapid expansion (often referred to a REXing) is the crux of your play style you will be forced to always play at levels below Monarch and/or be always forced into a certain civ because you NEED to be organized or something along those lines.

I'm a fair-to-midland Monarch player, and the best thing I've found about Civ IV is that in this level and higher the human player is forced to leverage each civilization based upon its strengths while trying to mitigate its weaknesses.

Yes, as Augustus (creative, organized) it makes for a good land grab with a powerful unique unit a beneficial traits, but why not give the Incas a try and see what you can do as a powerful industrious/financial civ. You might not be able to expand to the levels you could before, but that is not necessarily a bad thing as you can expand later and from a more powerful standpoint.

I STILL catch myself over-expanding on Monarch - especially when I play as Egypt or Rome. At that level your econ will suffer dramatically and the AI will be able to out-tech you and likely produce a greater military as well later on. I like to stay within the 3-5 city range at first depending on the civ and then get myself ready to expand at the expense of a neighbor once code-of-laws is on board, and that can be pushed further when currency is discovered.

No strategy is inherently right or wrong, and of course the idea is to have fun playing the game. I only suggest you try other play styles and expand your civ horizon because there is a great deal MORE fun to be had I should think. Keep up reading these boards and you can see that there is quite an array of information to help you do so.
 
If you dont have a state religion you cant run OR, well, you can but it doesnt do anything afaik. So what do you do in the case of no state religion, how do you spread all those religions?

I am pretty sure you can build missionaries under OR withouth having a state religion, just don't get the production bonus.

Some improvements I can think of:

- block the AI from expanding into your territory early, then back fill. This is quite essential if land is scarce, but looks like it's not that big an issue here.
- don't found the city just yet, sit your settler on the spot, and wait until you can afford a new city, or when you are in danger of losing that spot.
 
If you dont have a state religion you cant run OR, well, you can but it doesnt do anything afaik. So what do you do in the case of no state religion, how do you spread all those religions?

It does do something, it allows me to build missionaries without monasteries. And having no state religion in and of itself allows cultural bonuses in all cities with any religion. Basically, those little cities that I just built and are nothing more than a pain in my neck for the short term, I turn one citizen into a merchant and set my build queue to a missionary, or if none are available, I build a courthouse until a missionary becomes available. It takes forever but at least the city is paying for itself and contributing in some small way. This way I can basically ignore the city and continue expanding.

Organized religion really helps me spread the faiths. And yes, you can have organized religion with no state religion (on my version anyway).
 
Very interesting, I figured if you have NSR that OR wouldnt work at all... you learn something new every day, to bad this little tid bit will prolly get lost in the memory banks as its not something youd need to know every game...
 
Spoiler :
I had found when starting Civ IV that the biggest habit I had to break in myself was over-expansion. I cut my teeth back in CivII when that was the best thing you could do - expand, expand, and then expand.

I've seen that Civ IV does not allow for this type of cookie-cutter play style, and I think that if rapid expansion (often referred to a REXing) is the crux of your play style you will be forced to always play at levels below Monarch and/or be always forced into a certain civ because you NEED to be organized or something along those lines.

I'm a fair-to-midland Monarch player, and the best thing I've found about Civ IV is that in this level and higher the human player is forced to leverage each civilization based upon its strengths while trying to mitigate its weaknesses.

Yes, as Augustus (creative, organized) it makes for a good land grab with a powerful unique unit a beneficial traits, but why not give the Incas a try and see what you can do as a powerful industrious/financial civ. You might not be able to expand to the levels you could before, but that is not necessarily a bad thing as you can expand later and from a more powerful standpoint.

I STILL catch myself over-expanding on Monarch - especially when I play as Egypt or Rome. At that level your econ will suffer dramatically and the AI will be able to out-tech you and likely produce a greater military as well later on. I like to stay within the 3-5 city range at first depending on the civ and then get myself ready to expand at the expense of a neighbor once code-of-laws is on board, and that can be pushed further when currency is discovered.

No strategy is inherently right or wrong, and of course the idea is to have fun playing the game. I only suggest you try other play styles and expand your civ horizon because there is a great deal MORE fun to be had I should think. Keep up reading these boards and you can see that there is quite an array of information to help you do so.

Yes, it's true, I end up playing on a larger map and gambling I can expand faster than all my neighbors. And it does make choosing a civilization a picky process.

However, I contend that it is indeed possible to combat the maintenence costs and keep your science rate at 80% or 90%, thus with clever diplomacy the AI will not overtake you in the science race short term, and will lose hands-down by the time communism rolls around.

I could even attempt a checkerboard pattern, have some of my new cities be scientists instead of merchants (probably 2 merchants for every scientist) to help with the science. But I think that having main science centers and merchants spread out is a better tactic.

I do believe you're correct, that with more civilizations and less land, such tactics cannot hope to work, but I find that I prefer the space, because it reminds me of Civilization II and allows greater freedom of choice pertaining to strategies.

One thing I find annoying is that I can't seem to explore very much, because I am always a hop and a jump away from my neighbors, so the fun of exploring the map and finding goody huts is all gone. And I am severely cramped by encroaching civilizations. It doesn't feel realistic to me, because in reality, ancient civilizations had been able to expand their great empires quite a bit before entering the territory of a major rival.
 
Spoiler :
Very interesting, I figured if you have NSR that OR wouldnt work at all... you learn something new every day, to bad this little tid bit will prolly get lost in the memory banks as its not something youd need to know every game...

It seems counter-intuitive at first, but if your empire is officially secular, or welcoming of other religions, then any religion within your empire can become well 'organized' and spread quickly and easily, without much effort. Although, the moniker "organized religion" would seem to apply to your state, not the religions within, so it does get confusing.

I consider an empire with organized religion but no state religion to be one like ancient Greece, where foreign religions were welcome and the empire had many different faiths, many communities with an official religion, but there were many different communities with different faiths.

Basically, state religion on a local level, and a melting pot at the national level. Not entirely secular, but welcoming of different faiths and allowing them to spread more easily. Seems to be realistic for the time period, following the Greece model.
 
Do you play with Saladin Asoka? He would be a great canidate for your strategy because he has double production speed of temples and courthouses (as well as lighthouses). His civic upkeep is also 50% less making it so that the shrine income can cover city maintenance and the extra civic upkeep. In addition, he starts with mysticism (which is crucial for your religion gambit). I don't know if you play with a cottage economy or a specialist economy, but you would probably want to play with an SE. This assumes your not playing warlords/BTS. If you are than everything applies, only it applies for Mahatma Ghandi (only even better because he has fast workers which will help greatly in improving your vast empire). Asoka also starts with mining, which is great if you have a source of gold (which would increase your research greatly allowing for Hinduism and Buddhism). Also, his UU is the fast worker which will help improve your large empire. Another leaders that would be good is Julius Ceasar (who would allow you to feel much more comfortable in the beggining with his praetorians) who trades spiritual for expansive which would improve your cities greatly (and make them easier to build) if you are in vanilla civ. He isn't that great in warlords/BTS because he requires war which you want to avoid until communism (at which point he would be pretty good); however you claim to win that all the time anyways. Another good leader (who wasn't really effected in warlords) is Isabella because she has expansive and spiritual which both fit this strategy (her UU probably doesn't help you that much).
edit: I meant Asoka, not Saladin
 
Back
Top Bottom