Good to see that you plowed on and eventually won the game. I would usually quit if I see myself so far behind at 1610 AD, or when AI captures and razes a couple of my cities. I guess it speaks volumes about persistence in Civ 4. Now I am motivated to go with REX strategy on emperor for next game. I will try this save again and see how well I do, and maybe post some saves. By the way, do you guys play much great plain or highland maps. I find great plain harder due to abundance of plains, not enough grassland, or trees. As for highland, I find the barbs can be overwhelming, and also not enough land for cottages and too many hills. Have you try games on those resource poor maps? What are your thoughts on those?
Revenge of Rapid Expansion Strategy on Emperor (crossposted from earlier thread)
- Thread starter goraemon
- Start date
I've done great plains before in a few situations. While is has large sections that are food poor, it simultaneously has many very high food city spots, due to the way that the special resources tend to get clustered. That makes it an interesting map for any strategy based on multiple great people cities.mutax2003 said:
Haven't played any highlands and only tried Great Plains once, and that was in the past when playing Monarch..it was a bit too small for my liking but there were enough resources and flood plains if I remember correctly that didn't give me much trouble as far as food was concerned.
East St Trader
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 40
The fact that wins can be achieved after a period of early all out expansion does not answer the question as to whether that approach is sensible or not. The wins may be achieved despite the REX rather than because of it.
My own experiments continue and I am getting closer to finding a workable balance which has a lot of REX in it but ameliorated a bit here and there.
One point which I have pretty well satisfied myself on is that where you share a continent with two or more opponents it will rarely be right to fight on two fronts. You can keep both in check easily enough but won't finish them off quickly enough and you will also lose out quite heavily on the benefits which flow from having a friendly neighbour.
An obvious enough point but it has taken me a while to settle it firmly in my mind.
Another point is to avoid complacency when your axemen are facing enemy archers. You must give a priority to researching iron working and keep scouting the enemy lands. Twice now I have been quietly dismembering an opponent at a pace which suited my other needs only suddenly to have spears and axes and swords appear before my main objectives have been met (taking the pyramids city in one case and securing the stone resource in the other). Had I followed a better prioritised research path and scouting regime I would have judged the pace required for critical conquests better. OK the research standstill would have lasted a bit longer but if you go for REX you really must achieve your primary war aims or you lose out at both ends.
That is not an earth shattering point either. But critical for all that.
I really must try a couple of wholly peaceful starts. But I do enjoy early wars. I am having my first expeience with Quencha in my current game. Great fun!
My own experiments continue and I am getting closer to finding a workable balance which has a lot of REX in it but ameliorated a bit here and there.
One point which I have pretty well satisfied myself on is that where you share a continent with two or more opponents it will rarely be right to fight on two fronts. You can keep both in check easily enough but won't finish them off quickly enough and you will also lose out quite heavily on the benefits which flow from having a friendly neighbour.
An obvious enough point but it has taken me a while to settle it firmly in my mind.
Another point is to avoid complacency when your axemen are facing enemy archers. You must give a priority to researching iron working and keep scouting the enemy lands. Twice now I have been quietly dismembering an opponent at a pace which suited my other needs only suddenly to have spears and axes and swords appear before my main objectives have been met (taking the pyramids city in one case and securing the stone resource in the other). Had I followed a better prioritised research path and scouting regime I would have judged the pace required for critical conquests better. OK the research standstill would have lasted a bit longer but if you go for REX you really must achieve your primary war aims or you lose out at both ends.
That is not an earth shattering point either. But critical for all that.
I really must try a couple of wholly peaceful starts. But I do enjoy early wars. I am having my first expeience with Quencha in my current game. Great fun!
East St Trader said:
But it does answer the question as to whether the approach is viable. You must remember that some of the illustrations used here and in other threads are rather extreme examples to make that point. As to the despite/because of argument, at worst it's both: it's inevitable that you will win "despite" getting yourself behind with your initial expansion, "because" you expanded enough to ensure the most stuff to work with for the rest of the game. If you don't win, then you've done something (many things) seriously wrong.
Well, these are just the nuances of effective warmongering in which a ton of people are much more experienced than myself. But I can say that fighting 2 wars at once is neither recommended nor necessary. Finishing off all your opponents are also far from necessary.
With REX as I've defined it, there is only one primary war aim: get yourself the most land. All other aims, such as securing pyramids, are secondary or tertiary. If this isn't your primary aim, then you're playing a different strategy which in itself may be viable too.
Remember I've already said before that REX isn't necessarily the only or even the best strategy for Emperor - just that it's viable, because it's quite a flexible and forgiving strategy. It does not depend on a key early wonder. It does not depend on a specific trait, a specific leader or a specific UU. It doesn't depend on religion or any early tech slingshot trick. All it requires is that you secure a sizeable advantage in land relatively early, and let time do its work.
I've seen quite a few people complain about how they can keep up in tech early but fall behind the later it gets and invariably get beat to the SS. Well, with this strategy the opposite is true - the more time passes, the bigger and more apparent your advantage will become. You can and will always outtech the AI with this strategy, even though no one wants to trade with you. I can't remember the last time I lost on emperor, and sure as heck can't remember the last time I've been outteched on emperor.
Btw, East St Trader, you've shown yourself to be a solid skeptic now spanning two different threads
including this one. If you are not consistently winning on emperor utilizing your interpretation of REX, perhaps you're not utilizing REX and/or you're doing some things fundamentally wrong. Or maybe you're not using all standard settings in which case I can't speak on it. Have you tried the challenge I've posed at the beginning of this thread? It was, after all, inspired in part by your skepticism.
including this one. If you are not consistently winning on emperor utilizing your interpretation of REX, perhaps you're not utilizing REX and/or you're doing some things fundamentally wrong. Or maybe you're not using all standard settings in which case I can't speak on it. Have you tried the challenge I've posed at the beginning of this thread? It was, after all, inspired in part by your skepticism.
very interesting read, goraemon
in another thread i was asking just how the hell an early overexpansion can result in a victory, and I guess you answered my question.
However, I think that part of the reason why REX is viable is because you are playing continent maps. On pangea, you are a target for the other AIs, which forces you to build up a bigger army sooner, which takes another big bite out of your GNP. With neighbors at your doorstep, you won't be able to focus entirely on libraries, courthouses, etc.
Nice to see that there are actually multiple strategies even for emperor lvl
One point I'd want to make is that it is vital to know exactly what you are going for. In your example, it is to make sure you have more stuff to work with. In my games, where I have been experimenting with slow expansion while spending excess production on missionaries or sometimes wonders, it is to make sure i have crippled some AI enough to be able to take him over with minimal expenses later, when my economy is ready (took me two knights to take over severely crippled greeks in my first attempt).
Nothing worse than trying to do REX, crippling yourself, but at the same time not achieving the "more stuff to work with" goal which is what saves you in the end. Expanding slow to not hurt your eco but not ensuring future land gains when you are ready is also killer. You have to know exactly what you are going for, and have to carry it out to the final extreme, because stopping half way means losing miserably.
nice read
in another thread i was asking just how the hell an early overexpansion can result in a victory, and I guess you answered my question.
However, I think that part of the reason why REX is viable is because you are playing continent maps. On pangea, you are a target for the other AIs, which forces you to build up a bigger army sooner, which takes another big bite out of your GNP. With neighbors at your doorstep, you won't be able to focus entirely on libraries, courthouses, etc.
Nice to see that there are actually multiple strategies even for emperor lvl
One point I'd want to make is that it is vital to know exactly what you are going for. In your example, it is to make sure you have more stuff to work with. In my games, where I have been experimenting with slow expansion while spending excess production on missionaries or sometimes wonders, it is to make sure i have crippled some AI enough to be able to take him over with minimal expenses later, when my economy is ready (took me two knights to take over severely crippled greeks in my first attempt).
Nothing worse than trying to do REX, crippling yourself, but at the same time not achieving the "more stuff to work with" goal which is what saves you in the end. Expanding slow to not hurt your eco but not ensuring future land gains when you are ready is also killer. You have to know exactly what you are going for, and have to carry it out to the final extreme, because stopping half way means losing miserably.
nice read
The Lardossen
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 238
The key for winning consistently on Emperor level is not using the best tactic, but choosing one that's best for that situation.
The most effective is REX for me, but I need to understand when to switch. Especially to win isolated island starts....
The most effective is REX for me, but I need to understand when to switch. Especially to win isolated island starts....
Similar threads
