Some help in Monarch (Warlords 2.08)

[Freeman89]

I am an exprienced Civ player(been playing since civ 1) but with civ 4 I am having a tough time, in Civ 4 the highest level I played was Emperor(with not much success, then I moved to Warlords(with 2.08 patch) and Now I simply get crashed in Monarch, compared to civ 4 where I won victories.
I play in normal speed, I usually start aggresively with an early attack, many times with Chariots or axemen and I weaken one civ near me, But something isn't logical in monarch 2.08 , while I have 4 cities the AI has more and defended well, almost always I do destroy the civ near me, but after that I meet a Civ that has 3-2 times more points than me when I have 1000 they have for example 2300, usualy my economy crashes and my science just stops. could someone tip me of how to start the game the best way in Monarch in 2.08?,( the AI is just better than in civ 1.61)

P.S The highest difficulty I won in CIV 4 1.61: Monarch
The highest difficulty I won in Warlords 2.08: Prince

 

[TM Moot]

I have moved up to Monarch, but am yet to win despite a shedload of starts.

Personally, I try to avoid an early war/conquest, as I find it takes too long to build up a suitably-sized army and move it to where it needs to be. By the time you knock back one Civ, the others are so far ahead tech-wise that its impossible to catch up. If you do successfully take a few early cities, the drain on your economy stiffles any tech research, so it too is game over.

Then again, as I admitted to not yet winning on Monarch, I'm probably not the best to offer advice!! ;-)

 

[Freeman89]

By the time you knock back one Civ, the others are so far ahead tech-wise that its impossible to catch up. If you do successfully take a few early cities, the drain on your economy stiffles any tech research, so it too is game over.

EXACTLY my point, I usualy do take over successfully over early cities but then the other civs are far ahead of me and I am simply doomed...

 

[Sisiutil]

I have moved up to Monarch, but am yet to win despite a shedload of starts.

Personally, I try to avoid an early war/conquest, as I find it takes too long to build up a suitably-sized army and move it to where it needs to be. By the time you knock back one Civ, the others are so far ahead tech-wise that its impossible to catch up. If you do successfully take a few early cities, the drain on your economy stiffles any tech research, so it too is game over.

Then again, as I admitted to not yet winning on Monarch, I'm probably not the best to offer advice!! ;-)

When I play Monarch and win, it's usually because I did the opposite: ruthlessly built/whipped units early on and conquered a neighbouring civ. Then you have veteran units with promotions that you can upgrade and send against other rivals later.

Once that territory and additional cities are in your hands, you just need to take some turns to consolidate and rebuild your economy. Courthouses, cottages, libraries, and markets will get you back on your feet. You may also be able to delete some obsolete units in your core cites that are inland and far from your borders and save on unit maintenance costs. Your population will grow, your tech rate will improve, and you'll find yourself overtaking the civs that are leading you.

Perhaps you need to choose your first target more carefully. First off, you'll need a friend or two, so don't attack your best tech and economic trading partner. Second, the target should ideally be close by and have more to offer than just a few cities: wonders, holy cities, and resources are all worth the cost of a war. Third, don't target the weakest civ; try to go after somebody bigger than you, with a higher score, better power rating, more land, and so on. That way, in addition to gaining territory, you are also chopping a rival down to size, which inevitably relatively benefits your own position.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Third, don't target the weakest civ; try to go after somebody bigger than you, with a higher score, better power rating, more land, and so on. That way, in addition to gaining territory, you are also chopping a rival down to size, which inevitably relatively benefits your own position.

Additional vigorish: one of the common causes of weaklings is poor territory. Capturing one city in good territory will be more valuble than capturing two cities in bad territory (even if you don't blunder by keeping them).

 

[TM Moot]

When I play Monarch and win, it's usually because I did the opposite: ruthlessly built/whipped units early on and conquered a neighbouring civ.

Cheers for that Sisiutil. I keep reading on here about early wars, axe rushes etc.., but being a Wonder whore I just like to build, build and build some more.

But I'll give that a go, and see what happens...

 

[Ruler]

Something what I noticed on your post. 4 cities is not enough on Monarch that's is something what's different from Prince on Prince you could start with 4 cities or even 3 and wait a bit and look how things develop ie nothing is sweeter than let the AI fight first when they end war take couple cities without losses but on Monarch 4 cities is definitely too few if you get boxed after 2-4 cities you are forced to fight with 6 cities I'm usually quite satisfied.

About warmongering cities after 8 you should really consider can you afford them or not or are they on profitable spot. 2 good commerce cities can do decent job to maintain 6-8 cities but after that at least 2 more.

EDIT: I have find this pretty good build order on Monarch, Settler find a city to get horses or BW, workers in both cities, barracks, units this is very close sometimes barbs are too fast and you are finished but 95% of a time I can make my first units just before the barbs comes, after that units, then chop settlers on your both cities and you have 4 cities use them to block AI is possible let some space behind you for couple more cities if possible. That's how I have made 6-8 cities starts on Monarch so you aren't forced to go on an early war.