Some suggestions needed please

[Hambil]

I play at prince level. I like a semi-leisurely game with decent combat but ultimately winnable without resorting to tricks and/or cheats. YMMV.

Let me give you a sample of my current game and see if you can tell me what I'm doing wrong:

Starting on a continent plus map, standard size, standard number of civs and CS. I manually set my opponents (somewhat randomly) to avoid the a$$hat with the %20 wonder building bonus. I usually pick a legendary start for resources, and no barbarians as they are just repetitive and boring and slow/annoy me seemingly far more than the AI.

I have all the DLC so this time I played as Korea. Started building farms right away (had a good starting spot for that) and scouts.

I found the Germans close by and they had a rediculous start - two iron, horses, a coastal city on a bay, lots of food, etc. I knew if I did not take them out fast I was screwed.

So, I started a second city near iron via the Liberty tree and cranked out 3 warriors (all the iron I had) and 5 archers by the time the tech was researched and the iron improved.

I attacked Berlin and with considerable work (considering I was fighting warriors with swordsmen and archers) managed to capture it.

I now had 3 cities, including two capital cities with legendary starts. I built my happiness up to about 5 and started a forth city with beginning work on the tradition tree. The forth city dropped my happiness from 5 to -9 all at once, every denounced me and life started to suck hard.

I began building for construction for Colosseums to solve my happiness problem, but at epic play speed that takes a while. In the meantime I noticed despite it being only about 50AD I was almost at the bottom score wise.

This just seems crazy. Either I am doing many things completely wrong, or the game is insanely cheaty.

All (constructive) advice appreciated.

 

[askia53]

If you want to expand early, go after liberty rather than tradition. it offers 1 happiness for each city connected to the capital via a trade network. Also, build a courthouse in Berlin if you havent already. This helps with happiness. Always try and found cities near luxuries, and try and trade to get more luxuries. Try to get Notre Dame when you research education, as it gives 10 happiness

 

[regeneration64]

It seems like you are concerned with your low happiness. As a rule of thumb, I don't settle new cities unless they are on a luxury resource/I can get hold of one very soon after settling.

If you are going down the Tradition route then four cities at 50AD is (arguably) enough for now. Build them up and get your research and economy in order before taking any other civs on/expanding. If you've got any spare cash and your happiness is below -9 I would consider buying happiness buildings.

If you are concerned about your points then just bear in mind that wonders produce the highest score. I've played most of my games on Prince and concentrated on wonders throughout the Ancient and Classical Eras; throughout the rest of the game I am usually 100-200 points in the lead.

 

[Hambil]

I don't understand the cost payout there. You have to build roads between the cities (ASAP I assume) just to get 1 happiness. Using SPs I can get the same happiness from building temples or monuments, or garrisoning a unit. The roads will eventually get build anyway, but is it really worth it spending effort on them early game (first 100 turns)?

 

[askia53]

I don't understand the cost payout there. You have to build roads between the cities (ASAP I assume) just to get 1 happiness. Using SPs I can get the same happiness from building temples or monuments, or garrisoning a unit. The roads will eventually get build anyway, but is it really worth it spending effort on them early game (first 100 turns)?

Well, since the roads already give you money, then for me there is no reason not to build roads. The free worker you got from one policy in liberty can be used as the worker to build improvements for 2 of your 4 cities. Build 2 more workers,1 for the other 2 cities, 1 to build roads. Another good thing about liberty if that you get a free great person for the finisher. Make this a great engineer, and use it to hurry production of Notre Dame.

 

[Hambil]

Well, since the roads already give you money, then for me there is no reason not to build roads. The free worker you got from one policy in liberty can be used as the worker to build improvements for 2 of your 4 cities. Build 2 more workers,1 for the other 2 cities, 1 to build roads. Another good thing about liberty if that you get a free great person for the finisher. Make this a great engineer, and use it to hurry production of Notre Dame.

I understand building roads at that point, but, I've already got my four cities. That's the logical next step anyway. The Notre Dame advice is interesting though, I'm going to try that.

I only have this problem if I start with liberty. Happiness is not an issue when I start with tradition. However, the game seems to have a predisposition toward expansion and conquering despite all it's claims to other ways to win. So, to keep playing and not get bored I apparently must learn to expand and conquer early. Especially since late game war is slow on my computer.

 

[Hambil]

It seems like you are concerned with your low happiness. As a rule of thumb, I don't settle new cities unless they are on a luxury resource/I can get hold of one very soon after settling.

If you are going down the Tradition route then four cities at 50AD is (arguably) enough for now. Build them up and get your research and economy in order before taking any other civs on/expanding. If you've got any spare cash and your happiness is below -9 I would consider buying happiness buildings.

If you are concerned about your points then just bear in mind that wonders produce the highest score. I've played most of my games on Prince and concentrated on wonders throughout the Ancient and Classical Eras; throughout the rest of the game I am usually 100-200 points in the lead.

Unless I misunderstand game mechanics my biggest problem with unhappiness is it causes other civs to hate you and eventually go to war with you. Your peoples unhappiness is not something they should even know, as you don't know theirs, but I don't think at version V anyone is surprised anymore that Civ AI cheats all over the place.

 

[regeneration64]

Unless I misunderstand game mechanics my biggest problem with unhappiness is it causes other civs to hate you and eventually go to war with you. Your peoples unhappiness is not something they should even know, as you don't know theirs, but I don't think at version V anyone is surprised anymore that Civ AI cheats all over the place.

That almost sounds cynical but I know what you mean. My happiness is usually around 5-10 in the mid game, as I'm expanding, and I am quite friendly with 2-3 civs. Late game my happiness sours and those civs who were allies decide to go on an all out war against me. They are still allies with each other though...

Personally, I aim to get happiness as high as possible and if war occurs because the other civs are jealous then I go on the defensive until they get fed up of losing so many units and then go on a massive counter-attack!

 

[joshua43214]

Unless I misunderstand game mechanics my biggest problem with unhappiness is it causes other civs to hate you and eventually go to war with you. Your peoples unhappiness is not something they should even know, as you don't know theirs, but I don't think at version V anyone is surprised anymore that Civ AI cheats all over the place.

I have never heard this, I am pretty sure it is not the case.

You will occassionaly get taunted for having a poor economy, low culture, or a small army, but I've never been DoW'd for unhappiness.

The big mistake was killing Bismark. The AI will despise you for all time if you wipe out a civ. You should have waited until Bismark spammed out a few extra cities, then conquer all but his weakest city, and leave the rest as puppets. Bismark's cities always absolutely suck (same for Japan, and the other early war mongers), best to put most to the torch right away. He will re-emerge later in the game, The best bet is to get another civ to declare war on him and have them take the hit for wipping him out. If he settled a city where you want one, and it is early game, it's better to torch it and settle a new one. You take a big happiness hit for anexxing, and courthouses will drive your economy into the poorhouse until much later in the game. Puppets get less unhapiness and always gold focus, they can be very important to a good economy, and their population contributes to your science.

You also need to starve the puppets down to minimal population, put TP's on non-food tiles, and destroy all the farms and pastures. If you capture a high pop city, retreat and let the AI recapture it, then take it back. The city will lose half it pop every time it is conquered. I used this technique on my lasst game when I fought a war on two fronts against Siam and a the Inca. Every city was between 20 and 30 population, by doing this I only kept them when they where down to ~2 pop. I was able to occupy almost the entire Pangeae map with and still take rationalism instead of piety. Once I had bulbed out to Stealth, I took my last two SP's in piety and finished the game with ~80 happiness.

Also do not play with out Ramses. Wonder whoring is just an invitation to get DoW'd. The other AI will start to hate you for poping them out too often. Better to give Ramses a good start and get some good wonders, then go capture his capitol and get all the wonders for free. Getting Ramses as a neighbor is a great gift.

The liberty tree is overpowered and is used in pretty much all victory types. Because of the imbalance, even very tall empires with only two or three cities benifit greatly from taking liberty. Unless you are after alot of early culture, it is best to get at the least the free worker and settler from liberty. You can also abuse the AI by not taking the free cultural building from tradition until you are ready for 3rd or 4th tier cultural buildings.

And lastly on roads. The general rule of thumb is to build a road once the pop of the satelite city equals the number of tiles the road will be. This way the road is at worst a break even and gives a +1 happiness. In practice roads should be built based on strategic reasons. It does no good to have an awesome production city if it takes 5 turns to get a unit to the capitol. I have lost games for want of a road when I get an early DoW. It is even worth paying 50 gold for open borders just so you can build a road through hilly terrain of a future enemy at times.

 

[Hambil]

I have never heard this, I am pretty sure it is not the case.

You will occassionaly get taunted for having a poor economy, low culture, or a small army, but I've never been DoW'd for unhappiness.

There is a message it will send you - something like "You are so unpopular I'm surprised you haven't been overthrown."

The big mistake was killing Bismark. The AI will despise you for all time if you wipe out a civ. You should have waited until Bismark spammed out a few extra cities, then conquer all but his weakest city.

I left him with a city. I usually only take capitals or planned cities. Any city placed purely for tactical reasons (to annoy another civ or pursue a border/resource race, etc), I will burn.

Oddly, the AI doesn't seem to care if I burn a city down as much as if I keep it.

I think the AI gets cranky when you take a capital perhaps?

And, while all the other stuff you discussed may represent good game tactics, I find it hard to play a game that way. It's hard enough for me to burn cities - starving multiple ones down to 2 and puppeting them is probably more of a karmic hit than I'm willing to take over a game

 

[The Pilgrim]

There is a message it will send you - something like "You are so unpopular I'm surprised you haven't been overthrown."

I also doubt that can cause a DoW. It adds a flavor but is a symptom rather than a disease. The primary reason for a DoW is geographical closeness. But that's not the only one: being a warmonger (including multiple DoWs and/or wiping out a CS/Civ completely), stealing CS allies, building wonders AI wants, being friends with particular civ's enemy, aggressive expansion, being too weak military, being too strong military and more - all provide negative modifiers and can eventually end up in a war. It's also common that AI is bribed to DoW you, in this case it will usually come to ask for peace after 10 turns. Just keep track on what modifiers apply on your relations with each civ. Good indication about truthfulness of their friendly attitude is the readiness to sign a defensive pact. No need to sign, but you can always check if they're willing to. Leaders that look friendly but are deceptive, won't agree obviously.

I think the AI gets cranky when you take a capital perhaps?

Specific leader when you take his/her capital? Do you think so?

 

[askia53]

I also doubt that can cause a DoW. It adds a flavor but is a symptom rather than a disease. The primary reason for a DoW is geographical closeness. But that's not the only one: being a warmonger (including multiple DoWs and/or wiping out a CS/Civ completely), stealing CS allies, building wonders AI wants, being friends with particular civ's enemy, aggressive expansion, being too weak military, being too strong military and more - all provide negative modifiers and can eventually end up in a war. It's also common that AI is bribed to DoW you, in this case it will usually come to ask for peace after 10 turns. Just keep track on what modifiers apply on your relations with each civ. Good indication about truthfulness of their friendly attitude is the readiness to sign a defensive pact. No need to sign, but you can always check if they're willing to. Leaders that look friendly but are deceptive, won't agree obviously.


Specific leader when you take his/her capital? Do you think so?

Yes. I definitely agree. I always check for defensive pact willingness. If they are "friendly" and disagree, i build up my army. friendly civs DoW'ing has happened too much

 

[Banman]

I've seen AIs get cranky when you expand quickly -- they'll get a 'you are building cities too quickly' modifier and they'll shift towards DoW posture and start taunting you about whatever is low in your stats (happiness, economy, military) -- subjectively, has only happened when i REX in early game up to four cities, either through conquest or settling

 

[Hambil]

I've seen a very early game AI with 5 or 6 cities and a dozen units. Things like happiness and gold are clearly much easier for the AI even on Prince settings. If I tried that I'd have frozen population growth and a hamstrung military from unhappiness; near zero (if not negative) research from negative cash, etc.

 

[Banman]

yah, I think even at prince there might be some advantages for the Ai -- certainly at the minimum, they seem to interact with each other differently than with a human player (though it's hard to know for sure due to the opacity of the diplomacy system)

 

[Hambil]

Mind you, I'm not really complaining since this is a known. Sid's games had AIs that obviously cheated before Civ even existed (anyone remember the original Railroad Tycoon?). He and his teams make great, playable games, but have always made pretty mediocre AIs.

 

[joncnunn]

Mind you, I'm not really complaining since this is a known. Sid's games had AIs that obviously cheated before Civ even existed (anyone remember the original Railroad Tycoon?). He and his teams make great, playable games, but have always made pretty mediocre AIs.

Most games still have AIs that are worse the humans.
But it depends upon the problem space.

Taking the way back machine:
The Atari 2600 game that featured 4 players defending their king inside a castle made of blocks with a paddle in which the AI controlled any players not controlled by a human (sort of 4 way ping pong) : An easy victory for the solo human.

Elite from the Commodore 64: AIs combat tactics were really bad, normally extremely easy to win a battle. (Only exception is when the RNG sent Tholans [sp?] that intercepted your jump.

M.U.L.E. : Really fun game, but the AI was non competitive even when the human played the Humanoid that started with the cash disadvantage (on top of the AIs starting with cash advantages)

Archon 2 Adept: AI non competitive even at highest difficulty level.

The SSI games (late 80s & the 90s): AI clearly outclassed by humans in all the ones I've played and needed to be played at highest difficulty level even to be competitive.

In fact, the games I can think of in which the AI is competitive have been real time games. And that's a function of not enough time to think. (That would be the Warcraft & Starcraft series.) Dad in fact pointed out that the speed of the AIs decision was itself a cheat in reference to how fast the AI could cast healing spells when playing the human.

 

[joshua43214]

This is the list of what the AI gets and what you get depending on the difficulty,
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ5/difficulties
Every time I look at the list, I am amazed I ever win on immortal let alone deity.

On prince, both human and AI are playing with almost no advantage. It's been a long time since I played on prince, but I do remember often feeling like the game cheated alot. The AI is actually just very good at following a 'set' script for building units and settlers. Since the script was written by the Dev's, it is very good at pushing the envelope and getting the most out of the early game. Once I figured out what I was doing that was less than efficient, I quickly progressed up to immortal/deity, with immortal being my chosen level for casual play. You will notice that the suggestions from the experienced players almost all follow a small handfull of strats, these are mostly deity strats that if you vary too much them, you die a fiery death.

I have been goofing off on settler mode lately, and there is a huge difference in the speed at which the AI spams out new cities. In fact the AI spams out cities in settler at about the same rate I spam them when I ICS in deity.