test your opening play

[madscientist]

I'll explain my start a little more. HC's traits and UU/UB are really made for a rather peaceful start with a burst towards a tech lead. My game had starting with lot's of wonders with an early religion (in this case judaism). The idea is to get to the middle age era the fastest and leverage that advantage as much as possibe militarily. Fast teching, wonders, fewer cities. No early war mongering for me.

 

[Winston Hughes]

HC's traits and UU/UB are really made for a rather peaceful start with a burst towards a tech lead.

The all-conquering Quecha is made for a peaceful start?! Now I've heard everything.

 

[Cabledawg]

Decided to go for the Civil Service slingshot. Research was gonna be the holdup, but on noble, i knew it would allow for more techs to be researched anyway.
My tech order was:
Fishing...for the boats
Mining....for the mines
BW........Wanted to chop and whip
AH.........hook up cows
Iron Working...maybe early, but its noble
Wheel.....duh
Pottery....whipped a granary
Masonry...built GW before I found no barbs...a waste
Poly.........heading to priesthood
Priesthood..for oracle
Writing....whipped library
Math

I founded 2 other cities near gems so i could up the research. I also stole 2 workers from the Indians.....that was a huge help.

As of 975BC...I am 10 turns from Pyramids, 10 turns from Oracle, and 14 turns from COL. I had to slow down the oracle build in the second city to get CS in time, but it worked out. I hadnt played noble in ages, so getting allmost all the wonders from a beaucracy capitol was kinda cool.

 

[Qwack]

For comparison purposes on early start, noble level may not be the best place to compare. Reasoning is simple. You cannot always apply a noble level early game strategy to high levels like immortal, but you can always apply a immortal level early game strategy to lower levels. Thus a better medium for comparison would be a high level.

The same thing goes for no barbarians. Also, I think 1 AD is the best date up until where people should play. 1000 BC isnt really enough time for some early game strategies, so the start up to 1000 BC may look weak if your doing something a more lengthy beeline/strategy or your REXXING to cut off land.

The thread is a nice idea though.

 

[madscientist]

The all-conquering Quecha is made for a peaceful start?! Now I've heard everything.

I tend to use the Quencha as very cheap defensive units to replace archers. Very good until barbarian axes come along. Then again I am used to huge boards so a quencha rush is usually not available given the distance to other AIs.

 

[illram]

For comparison purposes on early start, noble level may not be the best place to compare. Reasoning is simple. You cannot always apply a noble level early game strategy to high levels like immortal, but you can always apply a immortal level early game strategy to lower levels. Thus a better medium for comparison would be a high level.

The same thing goes for no barbarians. Also, I think 1 AD is the best date up until where people should play. 1000 BC isnt really enough time for some early game strategies, so the start up to 1000 BC may look weak if your doing something a more lengthy beeline/strategy or your REXXING to cut off land.

The thread is a nice idea though.

I agree with this, but Immortal may be a bit high. I'd say most of the players on here are somewhere between prince/monarch/emperor, so the OP's idea was to play a level everyone could foreseeably contribute to. I for one would definitely get smoked on an immortal save! (Although it would be interesting to see what advanced players are doing from the beginning.)

I also agree with you that next time around it should be up to 1 AD.

 

[slobberinbear]

The starts outlined above are all solid, but I would say not very imaginative... why not try something a little different.

I suggest a start that will use what you DO have from turn one, instead of focusing on what you don't have (fishing, mining, etc).

You start with mysticism, you are financial, you are on a lake and have seafood. Plus this is Noble, so the other Civs are not cheating on tech research.

This means you are an unstoppable dead set certainty to found an early religion, and probably both. Settle in place and work a lake or seafood tile first to get those commerce points. Your capital is shortly to become the religious and wealth capital of the world.

Once you have founded Bud and Hinduism (build warriors while you do, and go exploring) go for masonry and BW, quarry the stone and chop your way to stonehenge. You will generate a great prophet shortly, get your first shrine, and be well on your way to world power.

(Of course you will need fishing soon too, to get the food boosts).

For an example of how such a strat can really pay off - check this awesome thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=133492

It changed how I play Civ IV - the best lesson in making the most of your Civ's strengths that I have ever seen

Huayna is Industrious. There is stone nearby. Going for the Pyramids may not be "imaginative," but it does "make the most of your Civ's strengths," in your words.

I spent a fair amount of time writing my post about my opening play. I'm sure it isn't the best. But I don't need you opining about my lack of "creativity," friend, when you yourself seem to advocate copying someone else's strategy, which doesn't seem terribly "creative" either. I also note that, unlike Spain/Cuba, the Incans are not spiritual and can't easily swap civics and religions, though being Financial would seem to dovetail with the multi-shrine strategy.

I can see a lot of ways to go with this start, which is probably why the OP posted this particular one in the first place. If you think you have a clever/good move, post it, and leave it at that.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

For comparison purposes on early start, noble level may not be the best place to compare.

All openings offer good winning chances in amateur play.

 

[frob2900]

Imho there are no lasting general gameplay lessons to be learned from noble, no barbarians, Incas. Unless you are doing something very specific like aiming to e.g. improve your launch times for fastest space race victory.

 

[DaveMcW]

2000BC conquest victory using 27 unpromoted Quechuas.

 

[mice]

2000BC conquest victory using 27 unpromoted Quechuas.

Hm, that's quite an opening. I don't think I'll play out my version after all.

Yes, next one up a level and to 1 AD. A Noble player can do the opening at Prince. A Prince player can do the opening at Monarch. It's later that things get tough, so OP, Prince would'nt knock out the Noble players.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

2000BC conquest victory using 27 unpromoted Quechuas.

Nice. What was your build order?

 

[DaveMcW]

Nice. What was your build order?

*Quechua .

 

[vicawoo]

Quechua rush won't work so well on noble, because they won't have archery for awhile. On noble you can leverage an enormous empire early.

 

[Belisar]

I can see a lot of ways to go with this start, which is probably why the OP posted this particular one in the first place.

This is exactly the case.

For comparison purposes on early start, noble level may not be the best place to compare. Reasoning is simple. You cannot always apply a noble level early game strategy to high levels like immortal, but you can always apply a immortal level early game strategy to lower levels. Thus a better medium for comparison would be a high level.

The start came up during testing and wasn't actually "designed", but until now we really have some interesting opening play.
I fully agree on your reasoning but:
When I first did something like this (I gave a start file to some fellow players instead of posting it online) it was emperor, but problem was, 2 out of 3 refused to play on that level.
But if people are interested we can always repeat on a higher level.

2000BC conquest victory using 27 unpromoted Quechuas.

Way too easy for you, Dave
We did something like this in old Civ3, Arathorn's immortal SG, building just ~30 immortals und crushing the world. (on regent, which is ~noble)

 

[Unconquered Sun]

*Quechua .

)))))))))))

 

[Unconquered Sun]

While building quechua is the right way to go for this map, I took the opportunity to play a quick demo game showing how to develop a strong capital.

The important steps are:

- Monarchy for unlimited happy cap
- Oracle for Philosophy which allowed me to produce two GS with Pacifism, the first founded Academy and the second bulbed most of Education
- CS for Bureaucracy
- improving health as much as possible, moving to the river, preserving two forests, building aquaduct and the Hanging Gardens, and trading resources
- not neglecting research buildings; monasteries are good for such a capital

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

 

[Percy]

No way... Liberalism in the BC? That's... That's... I don't know what, but that certainly is.

 

[illram]

Wow, DaveMcW and Unconquered Sun those starts are pretty amazing. Well done.

Unconquered Sun, would you say that kind of start is doable on monarch as well? I haven't checked out the save yet, but did you basically treat it like an OCC game, i.e. focusing on wonders and building up the city as opposed to expanding? Just getting 16 citizens alone by 1 AD is pretty impressive.

On a general note I have a question for both of you and others in this thread. When you guys play, are you really micromanaging your games and taking a long time with your turns to optimize everything? Or do you find you can still perform impressive starts and games with a more laid-back approach. I'm asking because I'm the type who tends to fly through my games, and while trying to manage my empire at optimum efficiency I still find myself playing "fast and loose". This sometimes leads to mistakes along the way, some worse than others (such as discovering CS and forgetting to switch to bureaucracy!). There was a thread on this a while back but I think it may be relevant here as I'm kinda curious.

 

[madscientist]

On a general note I have a question for both of you and others in this thread who are fairly advanced players. When you guys play, are you really micromanaging your games and taking a long time with your turns to optimize everything? Or do you find you can still perform impressive starts and games with a more laid-back approach. I'm asking because I'm the type who tends to fly through my games, and while trying to manage my empire at optimum efficiency I still find myself playing "fast and loose". This sometimes leads to mistakes along the way, some worse than others (such as discovering CS and forgetting to switch to bureaucracy!). There was a thread on this a while back but I think it may be relevant here as I'm kinda curious.

I am a monarch player, been playing since CIV IV came out. Whether that's advanced or not I'll let yo decide.

I flew through this game although I tried to pace it. I normally play marathon games because I feel the game (and civilization) flies through too fast otherwise. Marathon games I tend to think between turns which leads me to not make many mistakes but I nake enough of them anyway.

BTW, I did not realize this game had no barbarians so I was a little more cautious in early expansion.