The Ancient Era

[thomson_2001]

Am I the only person who finds the ancient era hard? Once I get to medieval I pull out a lead over other civs but in ancient I seem to always be behind. Not trying to be boastful but Im not a bad player and win on monarch all the time. Now im trying the next level of difficulty (cant remember what its called) and I never seem to be able to complete any woners first.Other civs have massive armies, lots of cities and loads of techs! I dont know what im doing wrong as im pumping out plenty of settlers, troops and workers but still seem to be far behind.....I usualy catch up later and then romp into the lead but i want some ancient wonders of my own and cant fight a decent war (one with a chance of winning) until mid medieval. Then by the time im modern i can easilly beat my opposition (who most of the time are only early industrual era). Its not a ballanced game throughout the eras.

 

[Gastric ReFlux]

No it's not balanced across the eras. The AI is given free units on higher levels, cheaper costs of production. Going for wonders in the Ancient era is not advisable--you would be better off to build units and infrastructure. You can lose too many shields losing Wonder races. Let the AI build them, and plan your conquest/expansion.

Though I got a wonder last night on Emperor when combat popped out a GL and I ran him home.

 

[wohmongarinf00l]

if u really want to pull a lead early on at emperor, u really can't waste time building infrastructure in the ancient era. pump out settlers (build a city as soon as possible, walking all over the place isn't advisable), workers and any cheap units u can get -for example warriors instead of spearmen, archers are a complete waste of time. buy workers whenever they are available and improve terrain.
luxuries - better production comes with happiness so seek out and hook up luxuries as soon as possible. they will come in doubly useful when u build marketplaces.

 

[thomson_2001]

But if i only build settlers it means my cities sizes stay at 1. this means thast it takes longer to produce a settler than say a size 2 city. So i never know whether or not to grow cities a bit then build settlers or take the longer apporach and build only warriors and settlers. Only problem is that barbarians can beat warriors and without any wonders i fall behind on points and culture quickly.

 

[-proletarian-]

I have to agree here. I'm a strictly regent player (I don't like the settler diarrhea on regent, I can't imagine what it's like on emperor, monarch and deity) and I usually pull ahead for good by the halfway point of the middle ages, around education. Yes, the AI excels at the ancient era, as it is a more straightforward period of gameplay. There is less for the AI to consider, as most of the era is basically build settlers, build military, expand like crazy, declare war on me for no reason.....(okay, that last one was a joke ). When you advance into the middle ages onwards, the game becomes more complicated, more complex strategies are required for dominance, and so the AI falters. Human intelligence wins the day by that point. Unless you suck, of course.

 

[thomson_2001]

hehe. I actually do keep finding that the AI demands money and maps all the time. If i refuse they declare war on me with their 100000 units they seem to have so early on even though they have laods of cities and wonders too! I tend to stay out of trouble until mid medieval where i have failry established cities, troops to garrison them and some extras to fight with. Its a shame as there are some cool units id love to fight with in the anicient era - is was exciting time in history with cool units and id love to build loads of legionary for example and fight against loads of hoplites!