Sucking after the patch

[Willowmound]

I've been extremely reluctant to admit this, not least to myself: after the patch, I can't seem not to suck.

I play Prince. Or at least I used to. Now I can't manage it anymore. After the patch I'm consistently at the bottom of the pile, score-wise, tech-wise, military-wise... I just suck.

I used to be very comfortable on Prince. I have beaten Monarch. Now, though, I'm fearing I will have to revert to Noble. Noble! I haven't played that level since my very first few games of civ4.

I don't get it. What exactly is it the AI does now that it didn't do before? Better city placement? But I usually follow the blue-circle suggestion anyway. How can I all of a sudden suck this much?

I'd really like some advice here. I do not want to revert to Noble.

 

[patagonia]

Better city placement's part of it. Better tile development's another part.

In terms of gameplay, the main way in which the AI has been improved is that it grows its cities bigger. Bigger cities mean more tiles worked and hence increased commerce and production, which translates to more score (irrelevant), faster teching and all the rest of it.

The easiest way to keep up is to do the same. The Super Size Me challenge provides a good illustration of the power of large cities.

Noble's the closest thing to a level playing field in this game so if you do suck, performance there will give you the best indication why.

 

[aelf]

Just build military stuff. Forget about those wonders and nice improvements. Barracks, granaries and courthouses are all you need. Conquer all the AIs by mid-game. Not only are you almost guaranteed a win at Prince, a multitude of people are going to rise up and give you pats on the back saying, "See, isn't the patch wonderful after all? Those people who were complaining about having to warmonger a lot more now just suck!"

 

[miller4242]

To Willowmound - don't feel bad!!! I was a competent Prince player, but with Warlords(patched) I had to fall back to Noble.

IMO, Prince Warlords = Monarch Vanilla.

You just to have give alot more attention to detail when playing. You should probably start an early war, too. This seems to be a helpful strategy, even if you are going for a builder type win.

 

[drkodos]

I was just getting to the point of winning on Settler. Now, with the new AI I had to step back a level to not playing at all and instead I merely fantasize about the game.

And yet, I still lose.

My mom says I am still the bees knees though, so I feel ok about it.

 

[sooooo]

Just build military stuff. Forget about those wonders and nice improvements. Barracks, granaries and courthouses are all you need. Conquer all the AIs by mid-game. Not only are you almost guaranteed a win at Prince, a multitude of people are going to rise up and give you pats on the back saying, "See, isn't the patch wonderful after all? Those people who were complaining about having to warmonger a lot more now just suck!"

Or he could carry on building wonders and nice improvements and an average sized defensive army, but this time manage diplomacy better. Cosy up to manipulable, powerful civs, go for a tech the AIs lack and bribe your friends into wars with the tech leaders. That sort of thing.

Being peaceful and not bothering about diplomacy is now not an option, nor should it be. But barracks and courthouses are not the only answer.

 

[wioneo]

I always have played in a total state of war. Now I just capture nicer cities. I love this patch.

 

[asabahi]

I was just getting to the point of winning on Settler. Now, with the new AI I had to step back a level to not playing at all and instead I merely fantasize about the game.

And yet, I still lose.

My mom says I am still the bees knees though, so I feel ok about it.

Me too, and i used to love playing civ.
But truly it is not that hard to play, even peacefully, and win at prince. At first I noticed that I was falling behind on Prince after the patch. I than started to pay more attention to decisions I made earlier in the game and now it is not that big of deal. One thing is to trade tech aggressively. Either build lib early and run a few scientist, or build and start working some cottages.

To Aelf: I hear you man. I have read your posts that last few weeks and it seems that you want to beat your point into everyones head regarding the Blake improvements. Man it is OK if people do not see it your way. Chil, relax, do whatever, I hear your point of view.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm in about the same position. I used to regularly play Monarch, and win occasionally - now I'm having trouble. Today I dropped down to Prince, and am having fun - after this game I'll probably go back to Monarch. (Note to self: Build cottages earlier)

 

[automator]

Glad I'm not the only one. I had just about figured out Prince in vanilla -- I was winning about half the games I was playing through to the end, and even the losses were squeakers. Now I've gotta do really well in Noble to pull out for a win. But damned if I'm going to take a step back!

 

[Willowmound]

drkodos, you crack me up -- why oh why did they ban you...

I see a lot of you are suggesting early wars. Now, I play Large maps. So naturally I'm afraid that if I put all my wee resources into warfare early on -- instead of building libraries and courthouses -- I will fall behind all the AIs I'm not fighting. Which is to say, maybe six or seven. And how early is early, anyway?

About diplomacy: I've never ignored it. I'm actually quite good at it. I have done well in the past by playing AIs against one another. To do that, though, you need tech to trade (or gift). And as I said, I'm always way behind post-patch.

More cottages earlier is good advice. More workers earlier, too, is something I might benefit from.

Thanks for all the good advice. I'll try to implement some of it in my next game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, you want a REAL challenge-pre or post patch-try a multiplayer game against people who have been playing MP since the days of Civ2. Its everything I can do not to get my @$$ totally whipped every game. Still, I do agree with you that the AI is a hell of a lot more challenging-even on Noble!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Willowmound]

I don't have any civ-playing friends...

 

[popejubal]

I see a lot of you are suggesting early wars. Now, I play Large maps. So naturally I'm afraid that if I put all my wee resources into warfare early on -- instead of building libraries and courthouses -- I will fall behind all the AIs I'm not fighting. Which is to say, maybe six or seven. And how early is early, anyway?

Well, your research isn't directly tied to your production in the early part of the game. Your research comes from commerce and specialists and your production comes from worked tiles producing hammers. Obviously, you can do some trading of one for the other, but that's only in allocation of population to various tiles/specialists.

Your production will go to either military units or buildings or settlers/workers. Buildings make your cities more efficient and more effective. Settler help get more cities and workers help increase the effectiveness of your existing cities. Military units don't do any of this, so why build them at all?

Think about how long it takes you to create a well developed city. There are only so many good city locations, but even if you had an infinite number of good city locations, you would have to allocate a lot of resources to developing those cities and upgrading the land that they occupy. Instead of doing all that work yourself, why not just build a few military units and take those cities from someone else? If you take a good city from another civ, then you gain an additional good city location (the scarcest resource in the game) and you get any non-culture buildings and population that the city had when you captured it.

I hope you can see the connection here. Not only do you now have enough military units to keep other nations from wanting to attack you, you also have a few new cities that will help you accelerate to global domination. You will see a short period of technological slowdown as you absorb those cities into your empire, but that will be more than made up for by the improved empire that you end up with.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well neither do I, technically speaking. These are just people I met online-via this forum and Apolyton-who were into MP games. Civ4 actually marks my first major foray into online MP gaming, and I have to say it is absolutely BRILLIANT. Seriously, you guys should give it a shot sometime !

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Willowmound]

Well, your research isn't directly tied to your production in the early part of the game. Your research comes from commerce and specialists and your production comes from worked tiles producing hammers. Obviously, you can do some trading of one for the other, but that's only in allocation of population to various tiles/specialists.

Your production will go to either military units or buildings or settlers/workers. Buildings make your cities more efficient and more effective. Settler help get more cities and workers help increase the effectiveness of your existing cities. Military units don't do any of this, so why build them at all?

Think about how long it takes you to create a well developed city. There are only so many good city locations, but even if you had an infinite number of good city locations, you would have to allocate a lot of resources to developing those cities and upgrading the land that they occupy. Instead of doing all that work yourself, why not just build a few military units and take those cities from someone else? If you take a good city from another civ, then you gain an additional good city location (the scarcest resource in the game) and you get any non-culture buildings and population that the city had when you captured it.

I hope you can see the connection here. Not only do you now have enough military units to keep other nations from wanting to attack you, you also have a few new cities that will help you accelerate to global domination. You will see a short period of technological slowdown as you absorb those cities into your empire, but that will be more than made up for by the improved empire that you end up with.

That is all well and good -- but the question you didn't answer is, 'how early is early'?

Do you go after enemy cities before your cultural borders are touching? Wouldn't the maintenance kill you?

I do war. However, I don't usually start warring until the Middle Ages. I wouldn't call that early.

When should I start?

 

[aelf]

Being peaceful and not bothering about diplomacy is now not an option, nor should it be. But barracks and courthouses are not the only answer

I never said to ignore diplomacy. That would just be so ironic.

To Aelf: I hear you man. I have read your posts that last few weeks and it seems that you want to beat your point into everyones head regarding the Blake improvements. Man it is OK if people do not see it your way. Chil, relax, do whatever, I hear your point of view.

Sorry. Was a bit irate yesterday. What gets me is how people twist words up to confirm their narrow-minded views and accuse people like me of saying things that we never said. I wanted to make things clear. But now I've learnt better. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[HardCoder]

To Willowmound - don't feel bad!!! I was a competent Prince player, but with Warlords(patched) I had to fall back to Noble.

IMO, Prince Warlords = Monarch Vanilla.

You just to have give alot more attention to detail when playing. You should probably start an early war, too. This seems to be a helpful strategy, even if you are going for a builder type win.

Yeah, it totally sucks to get a start in a Warlords game that gives you no good strategy other than to build and research even if that puts you on top. I just quit a Terra game where I barely had a corner of the Old World, but that corner had a bunch of fish and crabs. So I had a bunch of Great Scientists, and then had Optics and Astronomy several centuries before any other civilization did, and then I had the New World all to myself ... bah. How exciting. I must have killed 100-200 barb units up to and including macemen, and all my generals sat at home and watched.

 

[Watiggi]

That is all well and good -- but the question you didn't answer is, 'how early is early'?

Do you go after enemy cities before your cultural borders are touching? Wouldn't the maintenance kill you?

I do war. However, I don't usually start warring until the Middle Ages. I wouldn't call that early.

When should I start?

If you find a close enough neighbour, right away. Go for Bronze Working, build a settler and use it to hook up copper. Then chop/pop rush City Raider Axemen. You'll do better with an Aggressive leader though, for this. Otherwise, wait until Swordsmen and Cats. I always play pangaea, so there are always neighbours close by.

 

[bovinespy]

One thing I've noticed, having played about a half dozen games at least through the late middle ages/early renaissance (Warlords/2.08/Prince/Epic/Fractal/Standard/Low Sea Level), is that the tech pace is A LOT faster. I'm talking - the AI routinely having Gunpowder circa 1200, Banking about the same time, Astronomy a few turns later. In the games I played before the patch (same settings), this research wasn't generally researched 'til 1500 - 1600 AD (roughly historical). I like how the AI is now tougher and builds bigger cities, but I think that they should balance things out by moving tech trading back from Alphabet. I think it should come with Paper, or maybe Guilds. This would also spice things up research-wise about this time.

drkodos: I miss Chuckie!