Starting to get the hang of things

[Toxitalk]

Its taken a few games, but Im starting to see how things work with civ4.

I used to play civ 1,2 and 3 quite a lot, but 4 always seemed to throw me.

From my few games this time around (Bought it when it first came out, but my laptop just would not run it as playable)

Anyway this is how I am playing at the mo.

worker, worker, settler (then I basically worker, worker, warrior, settler)

On the research side of things I go for chopping forest and jungle, then concentrate on things that will give me culture.

In the last game I found I rex'd loads and were able to culture bomb alot.

I will love to see how this works in harder games.

 

[Sisiutil]

Some people swear by building Workers and Settlers first; me, I prefer my city to grow a bit, as having more tiles worked makes the production of Workers and Settlers faster.

Your research path sounds like you go for Bronze Working early, which is almost always a good choice, but then on to Iron Working, which is more situational. If you're playing as Rome, then yes, by all means, get IW ASAP so you can start producing Praetorians. Otherwise, however, you should probably delay it. 9 times out of 10 when I'm not playing as Rome, I get IW after Alphabet via a tech trade with the AI. And Worker turns are invaluable early in the game; using them to chop jungle is a bit of a waste. I prefer to let the AI settle in the jungle and clear it, then I swoop in with my military and conquer them.

As for culture--are you going for a cultural victory? If not, why the emphasis on culture? Unless you're in fierce cultural boundary battles over key tiles, culture can be made a much lower priority compared to techs that help your economy (Code of Laws for Courthouses, Currency for trade routes, markets, and gold trading), and/or those that increase your military strength and capabilities (Construction for Catapults).

 

[Toxitalk]

The idea really came from the concept, that war is bad.

You are taking resources and piling them in to military units, in addition while your in conflict with someone you cant be building your empire (all your effort goes into your war effort).

So if the land allowed for it grab as much land as possible then just bulid and build your civ to be non war. I was supprised how quickly my cities grew when I was not doing my usual military thing.

What supprised me more was the amount of inter civ trading I could do as well.

The next game I play, I am going to go down the passive route again, but this time only attack once I have been attacked.

 

[JBossch]

while your in conflict with someone you cant be building your empire

On the contrary, war is a great way to build your empire.

 

[goldenhero]

On the contrary, war is a great way to build your empire.

Agreed, because although you are building military units instead of settlers, you SHOULD be taking AI cities, thus expanding your empire.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

On the contrary, war is a great way to build your empire.

And sometimes a necessary way to build your empire .

The hard part is winning the war soundly enough that you can start building infrastructure while at war. If you can do this and get away with it (aka still win the war) it can REALLY strengthen a player's position. Sufficient buildup for that is often difficult however. Two ore three really STRONG hammer cities can help the situation however, as can a globe draft city later on.

 

[Zanttu]

The idea really came from the concept, that war is bad.

You are taking resources and piling them in to military units, in addition while your in conflict with someone you cant be building your empire (all your effort goes into your war effort).

So if the land allowed for it grab as much land as possible then just bulid and build your civ to be non war. I was supprised how quickly my cities grew when I was not doing my usual military thing.

What supprised me more was the amount of inter civ trading I could do as well.

The next game I play, I am going to go down the passive route again, but this time only attack once I have been attacked.

You've got a point here, war slows you down at least for a while. But I would say at higher levels it get's really hard to win the AI's without having at least a few wars. This is simply because the AI's are not good at war. At higher levels they have bonuses for research, start with more workers, etc. IMO the best way to catch them is to use their biggest weakness, warfare.

 

[Toxitalk]

I think the way to test the passive route would be to set up a checker board game (Pre place cities alternate with your enemy, with no space to set up new cities) and see how the game pans out.

If you remove the rex (no space to develop), what works better a war machine, or a passive society?, it almost smacks of risk.