Tech race on prince - a new method?

dannyusmc78

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
85
Ok Ive posted quite a few times on different threads ever since I got to Prince level and had my a$$ handed to me about 20 times....my latest game, ive finally run with the pack. The absolute key is keeping up with AI's tech. My strategy? a Library in EVERY city, with at LEAST one scientist. Light bulb one tech, 2 MAX. otherwise, create academies.

Also, when starting game....try to found your city near a source of stone, beeline masonry, build quarry, then pyramids. In my opinion, its vital. Switch to representation immediately thereafter. I spent the whole game using vassalage/theocracy (free religion is better though for tech research). That way all units have mucho experience right out of the gate.

Two questions: What other wonders are vital to build? And when in war, what should be my logic in terms of keeping versus razing cities? My latest game, im at war with monty, and I justc ant afford to keep the cities I take, and hes razing mine.
 
sounds like a hybid economy - some features of a specialist economy except that you only have a few specialists

on razing -

I always raze some cities to keep total mantenance down. the AI cities often overlap in any case. sonme cities, especially capitals have some great resources and will easily earn their keep. Montes cities probably not great except for turning out units - if you want to spam units you might keep them. However I rely on one or two specialist cities with instructors etc

however if I am in a weak military position it can be distracting if the AI settles city sites especially behind the front line so I do keep cities to provide influence over the map _ it works on noble but probably not on higher levels so I would be keen to hear others thoughts
 
If you are on Prince level with a non-financial civ, and have stone, I would build stonehenge, GW, Pyramids, HG. Don't lightbulb at Prince level. Build an academy in your planned Super Science City and then all future GS are settled.
 
The real key is the pyramids and running scientists. The academies are wasteful. It's not vital, but it's almost a free win on most levels.
 
Academies are not wasteful ... 1 academy with the 2nd or 3rd scientist in the SSC is very strong.
 
I tend to agree with xanadux......academies can be of REAL benefit....i started another thread, maybe you guys saw....im at war with monty, and winning, either taking or razing cities, yet my score is going down...why????...if Im going for time victory, im shooting myself in the foot, so to speak...at prince and above, what is the most viable victory condition? If its time, I can never seem to lead the pack, theres always one AI that is at least a few hundred and always gaining...space race? tech race would have to REALLY be in my favor, and Ive just been able to keep even...barely....

what say all of you? by the way, xanadux....what is GW wonder? and what do you mean all GS's are settled?
 
by the way..this war with monty is fruitless.....hes spamming military like theres no tomrrow.....its just not even realistic.....all of a sudden he has at least 6 riflemen/genadiers/cavalry in each city.....its impossible to keep up....and now my units are on strike
 
Lightbulbing is good when you get substantial immediate benefit, eg. liberalism race, or can get substantial trade value and thus multiply the beakers that way.

Below Monarch, it's hard to get any trade value from lightbulbing - the AI just isn't teching fast enough. And because you can keep tech lead in any case, there isn't similar substantial benefit (eg. you can't lose liberalism race even if you self-research it all the way without a single lightbulb).

So, scientists on Prince and below should be used for other purposes: Academies, settling, and golden ages.

It's always possible to calculate settling vs academy beaker to beaker, but settling also adds a hammer. Usually at least first GS will be used for Academy in primary research city (which most often will become Oxford city later).

So for example assume a city post-Educate pre-SciMeth with two religions (and thus two monasteries). Library + University + Academy + Oxford Academy + 2 Monasteries = +245%. This would later get +25% from Observatory, lose 20% at SciMeth due to Monasteries obsoleting, and in late game still gain another +25% from Laboratory.

A settled GS provides 6 beakers, so with above multiplier 20.7 (31.05 if representation).

Compare this to an Academy - +50% to base beakers. Thus, academy is better than settling GS to primary science city in any such city that produces at least 42 (63) beakers pre-multipliers. This could be eg. 6 (9) non-financial towns with Free Speech and Printing Press. Cities do get some commerce from other sources too, but then again slider isn't going to be at 100%.

Generally I would settle scientists past the first to my primary science city as they will provide beakers even when slider is down and will also give hammer, but if I have other excellent science cities, academies are considered.
 
The big problem here is that your game is very inefficient. Thus, you are working very hard to break even on a level where you should be cruising. All of the problems you are facing with rilfes, and strikes, and so on are consequences of the fact that you aren't playing the turns between 4000BC and 1000BC well.

First hint: abandon the pyramids. They cost too many hammers, AND you are giving city development to get the stone you need, AND you are wasting time researching Masonry when you should be doing something useful.

Concentrate on developing good cities instead.
 
having an academy in one city is really strong if you also have some settled scientists in the city.

I'll have to consider following VoU's advice on the pyramids. My current game (random leader) gave me stone in the capital's fat cross and an industrious leader so I built pyramids and stonehenge, partly for the GP points.
 
Wow, the voice of unreason....youve helped before......you say concentarte on developing good cities....way vague. As I said, I try to have a library and at least one scientist in every city, one production city pumping out military. Whats so different with your method?
 
Alos, can GS's born in one city be moved to another city to create an academy? Ive never tried that.
 
Alos, can GS's born in one city be moved to another city to create an academy? Ive never tried that.

Yes of course!

As a rule, your best play will be to identify ONE city as a candidate for being the science city - I recommend choosing your capital until you get a better understanding for when you might want it to be somewhere else - and use the first scientist to create an academy there. The other scientists that you get should walk to that city and then be attached as super-specialists (so that they beakers they give will also be multiplied by the Academy). Your science city, in addition to the library and academy will also want a monastery for every religion you can get your hands on (just for the research bonus).
 
VoiceofUnreason, if I could fly out to wherever you are and watch you play a game start to finish, id freakin do it...thats how bad this is killin me.....I dont get how on CIV 1 i was whooping it up, and now on civ 4, im just breaking even on prince.....I WANT TO BE LIKE YOU DAG NAMMIT!
 
Wow, the voice of unreason....youve helped before......you say concentarte on developing good cities....way vague. As I said, I try to have a library and at least one scientist in every city, one production city pumping out military. Whats so different with your method?

Mine's probably a lot faster. I probably turn toward hereditary rule a lot sooner than you do, so my important cities grow faster. My great people turn up more reliably (sooner, and of the precise type that I want). I discover the important technologies for a given map a lot sooner than you do, so my early advantages multiply much more quickly than yours do.

I wouldn't call it my method, necessarily - there are lot of players who take a similar approach. We've got an understanding of how the game works, and the kinds of games we like to play, and identify the important elements early, and PLAN.

In particular, I'd encourage you to think about
a) what are you doing between 4000BC and 3000BC
b) what are you doing between 3000BC and 1000BC
 
Back
Top Bottom