Strategies that work on Emperor

hollebeek

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
74
Just wanted to start up a discussion with other people who can consistently
win on Monarch, but are struggling with Emperor.

After trying five or six times, I just had a fairly successful game, and
want to share my experience for others to discuss. Feel free to do the same.
I'd like to keep the discussion centered on things that work on Emperor
level, though, since lots of the strategies that work well on lower levels,
don't.

First, Civ choice: I'm actually using Ghandi, though I may switch to Asoka
in the future, as I didn't get as much use out of Industrious on Emperor as
I did on Monarch, though the cheap forges are still useful. I think the
AI gets a sizable production bonus on Emperor, because as an Industrious
civ I routinely built nearly every wonder on Monarch, but on Emperor I've
been struggling to get just a handful.

Anyway, the choice of the Indians is due to a new strategy of mine which
relies on the fact that they are the only civ with Mining and Mysticism.
I used to agonize about whether to found a religion or beeline for chop-
rushing. On Monarch, you can do both, but with the barbarians turning
aggressive 250 years earlier on Emperor, it's substantially tougher, since
you need to research archery and whip out defensive units too, all in a
shorter time frame.

However, with Mysticism and Mining for free, it's still doable, and there
is an additional benefit of having Mysticism at the start: you can put
shields into Stonehenge from the start, instead of having to chose
between building something less useful, or building a worker and hoping
your starting location and your other free tech (Aggriculture, Hunting, etc)
actually allow him to do something useful.

The Fast Worker is also a bit of a bonus. The other UUs commit you to
fighting a war at a crucial time in the game, or forgoing their usefulness.
And it's hard to know in advance when you will want to fight. But the
Fast Worker is always useful, even if the boost to speed is slight (roughly
10% or so, saving on average one turn moving per ten turns building).

So I found my city, start building stonehenge, and researching Polytheism.
Delhi founds Hinduism, starts researching Bronze Working, and switches to
producing a Fast Worker at size 3, which makes the Fast Worker appear
two turns after Bronze Working is discovered. How convenient!

I chop rush a Settler, and another Fast Worker to develop my capital city
while the other worker moves to the new city. I research Archery, then
techs for the resources in range (Aggriculture, Fishing, Animal Husbandry,
etc) while Delhi finishes Stonehenge, then whips out three Archers as
barbarians will be an issue soon.

While this is going on, my second city chop rushes a Settler and two Fast
Worker, giving me an extra one to concentrate on roads linking cities and
resources.

I build additional cities by chain chop rushing: the first thing any city builds
is a chop-rushed Settler and a Fast Worker, using the Fast Worker produced
by the last city. That worker then sticks around and develops the city
afterwards. I find this "one Settler at a time" chop rush strategy allows older
cities to develop well, and produces an expansion speed that is just about
right for Emperor. (On Monarch and lower levels, I'd produce two Settlers
in my second city, and maintain a "two Settler at a time" chop rush strategy,
but maintenance appears to be more expensive on Emperor too)

I try both Pyramids and the Oracle, but get narrowly beaten to both, despite
chopping the remaining trees to help.

I'm lucky that I'm in a good location, on a continent with two competitors,
both far enough away that I can build the inner ring cities in their direction
without interference, then concentrate on the inner ring on the far side from
them at my leisure. There's also room for two more distant cities on the
far side, and Catherine in nice enough to raze the Barbarian city there,
making room for me to settle.

Another thing that went my way is that Isabella grabbed Buddhism and
Judaism, so the Russians and Americans on my continent were religion free.

Maintenance is a bit of a problem, with my science rate dropping as low as
30% due to the large number of cities I've staked off. But I know that's
temporary and spam missionaries to the Russians and Americans, making
them both quite friendly, and also solving all my financial problems once
the Great Prophet from Stonehenge appears.

I have a nice sized, well developed, 80% researching empire now, and am
sitting pretty about third place in the score. I start working on my
somewhat neglected army. Washington founds Confucianism and switches,
marking himself as my next target. Catherine also gets a bit upset with
him, and declares war. After letting her decimate his standing armies,
I declare war several turns later when she asks, despite not having nearly
the number of troops I like to have for a war.

I manage to take New York, and am knocking on the door of Atlanta, when
Catherine suddenly makes peace, and a small counterattack by the Americans
convinces me that my meagre force outside Atlanta probably won't be able
to hold out long enough to take it, so I make peace too.

I continue developing and building my army; I should discuss my development
strategy a bit. I have lots of health resources, and like to get Guilds
fairly early, and build granaries and aqueducts when necessary, so health
is generally not a problem. On Emperor, I've become a big fan of Hereditary
Rule while at peace, using the army that you need anyway to deter attacks to
make my cities superhappy. This allows cities all across my empire to grow
quite large, as opposed to Representation which only helps 5 cities, and not
as much. I tend to switch to Representation when my army is out in the field
fighting, to keep my 5 best cities happy, so they can produce reinforcements.

Once I have a reasonably sized army, I let the Americans have it, quickly
rolling through Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Washington, and then having enough
left to manage to split my forces and take Chicago and Boston, wiping out the
Americans. I'll note I like taking the capital ASAP when possible, despite
the fact that it is twice as heavily defended. First, it has the maximum
possible effect on reducing both the enemy's production, and also eliminates
the largest source of culture, pushing the borders back noticeably and
allowing a quick advance towards secondary cities, while wimpy cities can
easily be mopped up later (after a period of peace, if necessary). The key
to wars in Civ 4 seems to be to keep them quick.

Anyway, elsewhere in the world, Napolean, Caesar, and Gengis Khan are getting
restless. Napoleon notices my slightly overextended state, and takes Boston,
but I'm able to retake it with not too much effort. The AI is really bad at
putting enough troops on a continent to actually establish much of a beachhead,
and Napoleon gives up on the war 15 or so turns later, after not even attempting
a second landing.

Factories are discovered soon, so I become peaceful for a while as I build them
and other improvements; I've moved to first place now with my sizable land base
and am now running State Property. After the factories are in place, I start
building tanks and artillery.

I'm about to declare war on Catherine, when Napoleon declares war AGAIN, but
doesn't land any troops. I pay the Malinese, who are on the same continent
with him, 800 gold to declare war on him, then wait a few turns to make sure
he is too busy too attack me. When no fleets come my way, I move onward with
my war against Catherine.

I'm using a few Modern Armor with collateral damage upgrades, maybe 15 normal
Tanks, a handful of artillery, and 15 catapults I still have around, but thinks
still go fast. After using the cats to get rid of the defense bonus and one or
two artillery to soften up the Mechanized Infantry, two cities fall almost
immediately, and Moscow falls shortly after the two armies converge on it.
The rest of Catherine's cities, with the exception of two remote islands I
didn't bother with, are now mine.

That leaves me in a strong position in the late 1890s, with a continent to myself.
Now thinking about how to end the game ... (space race is off). But anyway, I'm
happy with my first Emporer game where I didn't get by butt handed to me by the
AI.
 
It might be better if you restricted yourself to only a handful of workers rather than mass workers. Usually it only takes 1 fast worker per 3 cities to keep enough up on improvements, although you might not have an improvement *exactly* as you need it, saving on less units and less forests consumed to make those workers is very helpful in the long run.
 
Space Race being off = not a real challenge IMHO. Otherwise you would be facing a launch in the 1920's perhaps on Emperor. You've basically given yourself an extra 150 turns to win the game.
 
Hi hollebeek I'm in exactly the same place as you (assuming you playing against 6 or more civs?), winning Monarchy but trying strategies on emperor. Just tried the Cathy spam now but got my butt kicked by no less than 50 knights by 2 neighboring civs, just at the point where I was going to start improving my military. I tried 1 Praetorian rush game as well, but just couldn't get my economy right after the praets got obsolete. The only game I got into a winning position was one like yours, with Qin Shi no less, and you are right the industrious helps a lot, and an early hookup to marble and stone saw me competing for wonders - missed oracle though. Qin Shi is financial too so I made sure my capital and one other city had plenty cottages and this helps a lot to recover midgame. I fear the knight rush on emperor, the AI seems obsessed with asking you for gifts, and dare you refuse, they rush you with all they got. Luckily I had a castle city on the border with plenty defence, and after they exhausted their forces, they made peace with me and gave me gold! With all the excess gold I moved to cavalry, upgraded all my knights, and killed off 2 civs. Napoleon was a pain though! Then 3 civs left (killed a weak one early). Aborted the game in the modern era, close to a domination win. But really there was a bit of luck in this game, I would also like to know how to consistently win on emperor.
 
Hi all, I've your same problem :)
No game at all on monarch, a$$ kicked on Emperor.
Skilled warmonger on lower level, punching ball on higher!
All the peaceful strategies tested on monarch (just to skip on emperor, the war gives me more fun, I like military strategies, manage the best path for my forces and so on...) seem to be useless and I don't really realize the "core" reasons. Ok... AI different behaviour, tech trading harder, slower research and growing manteneance costs, but it shold be more that I miss...
I won only one game with Elizabeth with SS, tried also with romans (financial crack!) quechua ( technological overwhelming), Catherine (unlucky spawn? always between aggressive...a clear welcome to pillaging)

My problem is at the start couse I ate over expansion, so I limit my cities to five till anno domini (0) :)
This allow me to keep science on 70% with a positive cash flow and the half of my land as a cottage carpet.
Maybe is a mistake couse low population means low research, even if you have an high percentage slider.
The free land goes to barbarians that double the dangers and to the closer civs.
I make stonhenge and Oracle and the shrine of confucianism. If my closer nations switch to my founded religion I'll adopt it too, if not I sacrifice the happiness to a peaceful status.
But the problem is most of the times LAND....LAND!! I play on pangea and small maps and the opponents seem to fill every single tile, even if is simply ice.
My strategy is quite similar to cottage spam and sometimes if I find a very good place I chop rush pyramids.
Anyway I find that's to hard to be at the same scientific level of the AI even if with a double gold income......
I was second or third in developement since 1200, first to discover paper, education and tipography, all useless. It taked too long to build universities, better watch my back with military units.
And if you are lucky to be first in land and in score like the last game the AI will attack you ( GG Asoka). They went in 1500 with grenadiers versus a good stack of fortified 3 longbow, 2 pikemen, 2 crossbow, and two macemen in the border cities.
I had only a thing to do:
quit and say it's a game :)

What can I do?
If you want I can attach something.
Good night, here in Italy is 1 am....and sorry again for this pizza high school english...yawn
 
A+ombomb said:
It might be better if you restricted yourself to only a handful of workers rather than mass workers. Usually it only takes 1 fast worker per 3 cities to keep enough up on improvements, although you might not have an improvement *exactly* as you need it, saving on less units and less forests consumed to make those workers is very helpful in the long run.

Well, 1 per 3 cities might be enough to keep up on improvements in the long term, but it certainly isn't enough to make all the necessary improvements to squares being worked and hook up cities and resources "in real time". In fact, even with 1 per city, I find myself somewhat behind. Maybe it is best to use a bit fewer workers, though; this is definitely part of my game I'm still tuning. Thanks for the comment.
 
sandman_civ said:
Hi hollebeek I'm in exactly the same place as you (assuming you playing against 6 or more civs?), winning Monarchy but trying strategies on emperor.

Yeah, I'm playing epic + normal (6 civs) with continents. The reason space race is off is because (a) I don't like winning that way much, and (b) I haven't bothered to patch yet :)

The only reason I'm still using Industrial is because Asoka is Organized, and
that's worse. But I'm not real fond of Industrial on Emperor, even though I
loved it on Monarch (Bismarck = Expansive + Industrious is underrated.
Those extra sized cities with extra production are wonder and production
powerhouses).

My next Emperor game will probably be trying out the Praet rush strategy just
for fun. But after that, I want to use Expansive + Hereditary Rule to offset
the extra unhealth and unhappyness of Emperor, plus either Aggressive
to help ward off attacks, or Financial. I guess that makes me England II
(Victoria or Elizabeth; my chart doesn't have which is which, or Mongolian.
Tried the Mongols and didn't like them much on Monarch; maybe I will like
them more on Emperor.
 
Oh, I remember my beef with the Mongols. Hunting + Wheel are not great starting techs. At least the English have Mining.

Or maybe Incan. Quecha saves the trouble of researching Archery, and
they start with Aggriculture (good for plains and wheat etc with lucky
start), and Mysticism!
 
You know ever since civ1, emperor has always been tough, I don't think there is any foolproof strategy to always beat this level or higher. You have to have a decent starting position with some luck with resources, some luck with barbarians (we all take a chance or 2), and some really almost faultless play. There will be games that even the best players will lose. I remember following a GOTM deity win on civ3 on a large map and even that guy reloaded until he found a decent starting position. The best thing to do I think in civ4 is "survive" up to midgame then try to turn it around abusing some of the stupid AI moves, but it's not easy to always play all the right moves.
 
(space race is off). But anyway, I'm
happy with my first Emporer game where I didn't get by butt handed to me by the
AI.

Grrr, at first I thought you had a valid strategy here, until I read you turned space race off. Not exactly the same thing now is it? Try to win this without tweaking things into your favour so much, and then you've got something there.
 
Merzbow said:
Space Race being off = not a real challenge IMHO. Otherwise you would be facing a launch in the 1920's perhaps on Emperor. You've basically given yourself an extra 150 turns to win the game.

If he's got modern armour in 1800s then he might have been able to compete in a space race. Maybe he just doesn't like that victory condition.
 
Tauro said:
Hi all, I've your same problem :)
[...]All the peaceful strategies tested on monarch (just to skip on emperor, the war gives me more fun, I like military strategies, manage the best path for my forces and so on...) seem to be useless and I don't really realize the "core" reasons. Ok... AI different behaviour, tech trading harder, slower research and growing manteneance costs, but it should be more that I miss...

Yeah, that's exactly the way I feel. I want to understand what the "core"
reasons are for the difficulty in emperor, and strategies for combatting them.
(civ or situation specific ideas are fine; I'd be totally ok with an if this then
that, and if this then that strategy, rather than a one size fits all one)

Here's some of the "core" things I've noticed about emperor:

(1) building wonders requires either a tech advantage, luck, or aggressive
chop rushing. And you're guaranteed not to have a tech advantage early.
(partial counter: aggressively prioritizing wonders with prereqs, like great
lighthouse, great library, and hanging gardens works well. I can often get
those)

(2) the financial crunch is worse, for reasons I don't entirely understand.
Number of cities maintenance seems to be the prime cause, though. You
REALLY have to be watching your finances before expanding. Blocking the
AI when possible is key, though being on your own continent is worse due
to the lack of trade routes and trading opportunities.

(3) The AI and Barbarians are less likely to give you time to expand
peacefully. Barbarians start moving towards cities at 1250 BC instead of
1500 BC on Monarch, which is a bigger problem that it sounds, since that's
the period when you're trying to found city 3 or 4. And the AI will declare
war in the BC turns if you're undefended on Emperor, where even Caesar
and Montezuma will often wait until 0-500 AD on Monarch. And the
Emperor level assaults are aggressive enough to ruin your game. Basically,
you want an army credible enough that the aggressive civs pick on someone
else.

Any other ideas?
 
jar2574 said:
If he's got modern armour in 1800s then he might have been able to compete in a space race. Maybe he just doesn't like that victory condition.

Well given that that's the only victory condition the AI knows how to win he's basically guaranteeing himself a victory. Given enough time to build units it's ALWAYS possibly to defeat the AI tactically. Even if the AIs are way ahead in techs most of the game once you both reach Composites the playing field is leveled. And even on Emperor it should be possible to reach Composites at the latest in the late 1800s if you semi-beeline. Then all you need to do to win is assure yourself the high score before 2050. Simple if you've managed to survive into the Modern Age with at least 5-6 cities.
 
Well, I don't know how to put this, but I don't really like the Space Race victory condition either right now. It feels very anticlimatic, and not very rewarding. With it enabled the modern era seems just seems rushed and a waste of the last 25% of the timeline, compared to the excitement of the previous eras.

It's nothing like the Ascent to Transcendence, which was a cumulation of an entire storyline into two awe-inspiring projects (the second of which anyone had a chance at) and felt like a true, exciting finale to a the game! SMAC also had Economic victory, and a more interesting Supreme Leader victory, since factions could actually surrender to you and were forced to agree to everything you said :king:

I havn't even completed 9 out of 10 games I've played in CivIV; I enjoy playing the game through every era (including the modern age) more than the completion options. The victory conditions just don't feel as rewarding right now.

Whether or not you like the current victory conditions is personal preference, so just don't critisize someone who likes going without the options currently available. Offer some strategies on the rest of the game instead :king:
 
Well, I explained why I had space race off, but it's worth mentioning again:

In the game, as shipped, it was horribly unbalanced. You had to configure
for space race victory in the early modern age, or before. It made the entire
modern age pointless. For a variety of other intangible reasons, it really
didn't provide any substantial "satisfaction". So I turned it off until I bothered
to patch.

Having played a few patched games, I have to say the increased costs help,
but still ... there still is some balancing needed. Not because the person
farthest ahead will win (that would be fine), but if the person farthest ahead
is distracted by ANYTHING, even the slightest nuisance, the unbothered
person on the other side of the world will win.

This whole thing is related to the fact that the AI still can't win substantial
(i.e. game changing) wars of conquest against other AIs. Until that gets
fixed, it's all about using your middle ages position to secure a base just
barely big enough to win by space race, knowing that the relative positions
of the AI won't change .... how boring.
 
hollebeek said:
(1) building wonders requires either a tech advantage, luck, or aggressive
chop rushing. And you're guaranteed not to have a tech advantage early.
(partial counter: aggressively prioritizing wonders with prereqs, like great
lighthouse, great library, and hanging gardens works well. I can often get
those)

First thx for you comment :)

About this point, an example on how totally rethinking wonders strategy on emperor.
I was planning to build oracle an pyramids last night (Catherine, large continents)
My opponents did:
Stonhenge in 2000 (!!!) BC
Oracle in about 1360 BC (quite normal, you can manage to do it in 1600 BC)
When I was three turns from Pyramids I read "Pyramids build in a far land....... (censored)
It was 875 BC!! And I had stone and chopped all except 2 tiles.
So I "lame reloaded" from 1200, chopped another tile and the wonder went in 975 BC....terrific...
On monarch You can do it usually near 400/300 BC...

And the effect that you pay is really heavy, you have only three cities, one for military and the last for improuvements...

Ok, I think, now I'm in a good position...
No! Frenchs attacked me in 750 BC (LOL) with one axemen and one Pikemen in my weakest far city ( we had same religion too and open borders)
I had walls and ONLY two warriors strenght promoted and I was VERY lucky, my odds were very low :)
In the next turn the city was well defended by another two graduated archers, I took the nearest french city with two archers, made peace, found a new city.
It was about anno domini and my economy was collapsed.... 0 science, 0/ 1 gold income.....faaaaaaar from writing :)
That *di0t Luis attacked me again, even if I was clearly superior! Another city picked..........And I discovered writing in 400 AD :D :D :D
My other neighbourn had already feudalism, I thinked he was first in tech... no.....
After a few turns The game show the "top list" of the science: Bismarck was .....
FORGOTTEN


QUIT
:D

P.S.
It was the first time that I had a great engineer totally useless, he sleeped like a baby in Moscow waiting to biuld something of interesting.....what a shaaaaaame.... :(

A very good lesson
 
Ok, I have another suggestion for the wonder problem. I addition to
aggressive chopping, how about slavery? Philo + Caste System is tough
to run on Emperor, because of the difficulty getting the pyramids ...
it's certainly valuable enough in that case that taking a 2-3 pop hit to
get it would be worth it ...
 
The problems with the wonders on Emperor is why I initially developed the strategy for cultural wins that didn't rely on wonders or founding religions. I've softened my stance on wonders, but am very clear about my goal from the start - I ask myself, based on this starting location, what single wonder should I prioritize? I go for that, expect that I still might get beat to it, and don't completely mortgage the future on techs I otherwise wouldn't research early.
 
Just playing another game with Qin Shi and something about the industrial/commerce combo seems to work for me. Still behind in tech approaching modern era but ahead in points, as I have wiped out one civ and stolen cities along the way and made peace. Even with financial I struggle to keep up to tech with emperor civs - anyone know how to keep up? I seem to lose my way around the "currency" level just after the initial war killing off the neighbor with swords. The AI also did a pretty clever move this game - I was about to attack a city near a coast - next thing he loaded all his 9 units in that city into 3 galleons - and made a run for it towards my poorly defended captured areas! Boy was it fun to track back to defend that one!

Once again luck was a factor - the 3 neighbors on my continent share the same religion as me, in fact they spread it to me. Not sure if I could have handled a "heathen attack" from the incas while I was wiping out the egyptians. Egyptians took me all the way close to 1000AD to kill and as a result my science suffered while my cities were churning out swords. Now how to maintain science in emperor while wiping out your neighbor?
 
Maybe it depends by the size of your empire, if you can effort to put at least three cities to build military units.
At the time I'm not able to wage a long war (more than ten turns) but often I can well defend the cities till 800/1100 AD.
Another thing I've noticed today: AI seems to attack you despite of their chanches, and they do it very early, in the last game in 400 BC (greeks). And they declare war without any reason: I had NO religion, I was trading with all, and they had ALL different religions.
After 1500 years I decided to attack the russians, I took out one city far away from the russians empire to obtain horses. I kept high defenses in all the empire, with walls in all the cities (8). One turn after Alexander declared war again, followed (in the same turn...) by Bismark, far away from me.
And after another turn Mansa joined the party!
Result: one third of land pillaged, economy under my shoes, science slider 0%. I defended all the cities (my longbow pikemen and spear vs similar, macemen, catapults, horse archer, and crossbowmen) and I'm still in war with Mansa. That's very exciting but I've just lost the game in the long run. I need at least fifty turns to recover my economy. Even if I had a beautiful start with pyramids in 2040 BC (shanghai of Qin founded on stone), strong economy, good army, two techs behind the betters till 600 AD.
 
Back
Top Bottom