a4phantom said:
1. My strategy for the past several Nobel games has been to minimalize settler-expansion and concentrate on conquest. Usually I'll build three or four cities, pump out a host of swords and catapults, and conquer my neighbors one by one. If I'm Persian I only build two cities (one if the capital has horses), and if I'm Inca only one before going on the warpath (all of this subject to the map of course). The benefits of this are obvious: I let my opponents do all the heavy lifting of building settlers, connecting cities and improving terrain, founding religions, and building city improvements some of which will survive my conquest. I also get assorted Wonders out of it. Also, by having a massive army from early on I deter attack from the AI civs, who are all bullies and vultures and only attack the weak. Often by the end of the game, there are only 5 or 6 cities whose names match my Civ, and some of those are built to occupy territory where several other cities were razed so they benefit from others' terrain improvements. I don't care to think about what this says about me as a person, but what I do want to ask is: will this strategy be less suited when I make the jump from Prince to Monarch?
I think it sounds like a reasonable sort of strategy, but you have to be aware of the fact that the most important thing in becoming a master of Civ4 (at least in my opinion) is the ability to
adapt to the different and unique situations offered by each new game. No two games are exactly the same (nor should they be!), so you won't want to adopt a single, overruling strategy for all of your games. Indeed, doing so would probably worsen your abilities at Civ! (Or at least it will not allow you to experience and begin to understand the full complexities behind the game.)
So yeah, just take a look at the situation with each new game and decide what your strengths and weaknesses are, and prioritise from there. If you're Persia, then you're right that getting those Immortals out early will be an extremely effective tactic against lower-level AI (although it's trickier against intelligent humans and higher-level AI, since they actually prepare with decent numbers of Spearmen). Don't have a set number of cities that you work towards in every game - factor in the map size, the surrounding terrain and resources, and weight your decisions accordingly. In some games it may be better to hang back on city numbers and just boom up the infrastructure of your capital and one or two other cities; in other games it may be worth temporarily sacrificing some economy to gain some important strategic territory through an extra city or two. You have to analyse and decide that for yourself.
(Although, with regards to Settler numbers, if you're fully going for the aggressive path then I agree that you might not need so many, since you can just capture your opponents' cities. Be aware though that this might not be the best option since the AI doesn't always place their cities optimally, plus they may be a long way from your starting location (depending on the map).)
a4phantom said:
2. When I have time to start a new game I will play as Ghengis Khan. What does one actually do with those splendid Keshiks? I usually focus on city taking units, with some attention to city defenders and what's left goes to auxilary units like horse archers. With the Mongols, should Keshiks make up a significant part of your army?
Again, it depends on the type of game.
On the lower levels against AI you can probably get away with Keshiks making up the bulk of your army. On the higher levels, and against smart humans, you should try to spread out your forces a bit more over different unit types - you'll actually be stronger and better prepared for anything they can throw at you that way. Of course, if you're Genghis then you probably want to at least try to make use of a few Keshiks (they're your special unit after all, might as well make use of them!). One of the only few cases in which you won't want to bother with Horseback Riding at all is when you discover that you don't have any Horses nearby (with Animal Husbandry).
As for their abilities, Keshiks have an extra first strike (which is nice, but only tilts the scales slightly in their favour), plus that no-terrain-cost thing. That's their main ability, and you should put it to use whenever you can. You can usually use this benefit to great advantage in field skirmish combat, surprising enemy troops by attacking them through a forest and then running away, or capturing a Worker that's been badly placed over the other side of a forest (you can even sometimes catch relatively new human players to MP out with this trick). Obviously Keshiks aren't great city-capturing units (though they can do a decent job if the defenders are weak or if you have a lot of them), but they're great support units, allowing your Axes and Swords to move into position safely while the Keshiks take care of any enemy troops in the open field.
But the best way to figure out how to work them best (just like any civ leader or UU) is to fiddle around with them yourself for a while and try out some strategies to see what works and what doesn't for you.
a4phantom said:
3. Sometimes I have very urgent Civ questions and RJ and Lord Parkin aren't on to answer them. What are their phone numbers?
Actually you wouldn't want to call me anyway, since being in New Zealand the toll rate would be quite high, I'd imagine.
Trv016 said:
Can someone sum up what a "first strike" is for me? I'm playing on prince and still have not learned exactly what it is.
Basically, "normal" combat works on a round-by-round basis: each round one or the other of the two units will "win" and inflict damage on the other unit. The chance of each unit winning each round, and the amount of damage that they do is determined by their relative strengths.
So, for instance, you might get:
Axeman vs Chariot
Combat Round 1 - Axeman wins, inflicts X damage on Chariot
Combat Round 2 - Chariot wins, inflicts Y damage on Axeman
Combat Round 3 - Axeman wins, inflicts X damage on Chariot
Combat Round 4 - Chariot wins, inflicts Y damage on Axeman
Combat Round 5 - Chariot wins, inflicts Y damage on Axeman
Combat Round 6 - Chariot wins, inflicts Y damage on Axeman
Combat Round 7 - Axeman wins, inflicts X damage on Chariot
Combat Round 8 - Chariot wins, inflicts Y damage on Axeman, kills Axeman
Chariot wins the battle with some (X+X+X) damage.
Now, the first strike is basically a "free shot" round in which one of the units gets an extra chance to inflict damage. In a "first strike round", the percentages of each unit hitting the other are as usual, but there's a difference -
the unit with the first strike is the only one that can inflict damage during that round.
To illustrate by example:
Archer vs Chariot, Archer has 2 first strikes
First Strike Round 1 - Archer wins, inflicts X damage on Chariot
First Strike Round 2 - Chariot wins,
no unit recieves any damage (ie "draw")
Combat Round 1 - ...etc
So the first strike rounds are "freebies" in which the unit with the first strike(s) is itself invulnerable to damage, but may inflict damage to the other unit. After the first strike rounds, battle progresses in the normal way with combat rounds in which either unit can receive damage.
I hope that clears that up for you. Just incidentally, I think that generally the consensus amongst players is that first strikes are usually not quite as powerful as the combat promotions. However, they're still quite useful for tilting the scales slightly in your favour when the units engaged in combat are fairly
close in relative strength to each other.
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
