The Glory Years - 4000BC to 0AD

[PRCouture]

I believe during that time period is the time when everything matters-- where you place your cities, how ahead you are, it sets you up for the rest of the game;
If you do poorly, you're going to get stomped sometime afterwards.

How do you spend your time during this time period?

4000-2000BC, i'm usually setting up to ensure i can be economically safe while maintaining my Roman infantry.

2000BC-1000AD?, more often than not, i'm conquering my neighbors, taking all the precious minerals and luxury resources, all the while suppressing them and ensuring my victory in whichever condition i desire.

In lucky games, i manage to get 15 population in Rome and it's just a intense powerhouse of win.

how do YOU spend those turns during that time period?

 

[jojorah]

Well i exp;ore and twidle my thumbs really, i uasuly play multiplayer on classic start so not much experience there

 

[Save_Ferris]

Conquest: For ancient, I settle cities and make sure each has a library and or granary. And of course a worker or two. Classical is about building up an army.
Cultural: I settle three cities, preferrably before 2000 BC. I make sure each one has a monument, and make sure I have Stonehenge. The classical era is about Philosophy- I need temples and Stonehenge.
Science: Get writing ASAP, and before that focus on growth. The more food, the more science! While you keep on expanding, make sure each city has a library, and after that granary. If you can, get the Great Library and National College.
Diplo: Expand for more gold, but don't get anywhere near other Borders and don't get in wars. Build some scouts and pledge to protect CSs but don't friend them yet.

 

[Horizons]

From 4000BC onwards it's basically press-return-key-spamfest.

Moderator Action: Your post doesn't really address what the OP is asking, please post in a way that promotes further on-topic discussion or don't post at all, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tabarnak]

It depends of game settings. In the present G-minor III, it's a big battle for the earliest domination finish date on a standard map, inland sea, prince level, epic speed. Hardcore players can finish under 100 turns( before 1600 BC i think).

 

[Ravellion]

From 4000BC onwards it's basically press-return-key-spamfest.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the thread at hand. But then, your word choice does not make me consider it likely that an interesting discussion was your motive in replying to the OP's question in the first place. I'd appreciate it if you start new topics for your grievances with the game, with clear thread titles, so I can avoid your nonconstructive negativity like the plague.
Moderator Action: Just as a reminder to all, if you have a particular problem with a member's post, please use the report post button or PM a moderator. Don't make things personal (and take things off-topic) in threads. Thanks.

In any case, I agree with the OP, the start really matters. I find that the policy choices especially make things interesting, and a nice change from all previous civ games, where governmental choices were almost always a clear progression, so you'd adopt them as soon as they became available. Only in the later ages true choices appeared. Now, in the current iteration, whether the choice falls to tradition, liberty or Honor, all carry significant but specific advantages, that really matter in how you grab land/wonders/happiness to try and secure your game as early as possible.

Sometimes, the thrill of knowing that it was one daring action in the beginning of the game that made the game develop in the way it did really makes me appreciate the turn based strategy. Civ 5 definitely has these moments. I remember one game where I was without Iron, and I was boxed in by the ottomans and some city states (behind which lay mountains, deserts, and the Aztecs, in that order). It was either turtle up and go for culture, or attack the ottomans with horses, pikemen and crossbowmen. I did the latter. In the assault on Istanbul, I lost all my melee units except one, who took Istanbul with his last hitpoint. But I then had the entire hinterlands open to noone but myself. I sailed through the rest of the game (can't even remember whether it was science, culture or diplomacy that made me win... I guess science), but that start was thrilling, and was the reason why the rest of the game became easy. With this in mind, the late game often becomes a kind of "reward".

Now, If you like this early game phase but want a slightly different challenge, I can recommend starting a game in the renaissance or industrial ages. You have all the things to do as you would in anormal game in the start (exploration, rapid settling, first contacts), but different policy choices and units to achieve these goals with. I really liked my Indistrial start game with Japan (taking policies in the autocracy tree and kicking the world in the posterior)

 

[AmandaKennyKe]

I believe during that time period is the time when everything matters-- where you place your cities, how ahead you are, it sets you up for the rest of the game;
If you do poorly, you're going to get stomped sometime afterwards.

How do you spend your time during this time period?

4000-2000BC, i'm usually setting up to ensure i can be economically safe while maintaining my Roman infantry.

2000BC-1000AD?, more often than not, i'm conquering my neighbors, taking all the precious minerals and luxury resources, all the while suppressing them and ensuring my victory in whichever condition i desire.

In lucky games, i manage to get 15 population in Rome and it's just a intense powerhouse of win.

how do YOU spend those turns during that time period?

Cool, looks great.

Moderator Action: Please contribute to the discussion or don't post at all, thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Horizons]

I fail to see how this is relevant to the thread at hand. But then, your word choice does not make me consider it likely that an interesting discussion was your motive in replying to the OP's question in the first place. I'd appreciate it if you start new topics for your grievances with the game, with clear thread titles, so I can avoid your nonconstructive negativity like the plague.

Chill out and stop being so anal-retentive. Peace and one love.
Moderator Action: No, that user is totally right. Contribute, or else think again if you really want to post here.

 

[sav]

At the risk of being hammered by the mods too, I'd call 4000BC-AD the glory years because it's the only phase of the game you're generally free of crashes.

But otherwise, I wouldn't entirely agree. My playstyle depends far more on industrial - modern strategies, to be honest. It's important, but I think one of hte good things Civ5 has done compared to Civ4 is made a Civ's future less dependent on its past, more able to adapt (aside from the whole social/govt thing).

 

[Samuil]

Build up.. Nothing is as important as a good start, well placed cities, resources, etc... Scouting a lot, and If I notice a civ building wonders and not expanding, I focus on taking them out, but not without catapults. (Strangely enough in my current King game, the Simcity builder was Napoleon)
I rarely speed military build up and work on cities and countryside. Faster growing cities mean more cash and production. By end game I am almost always an economic powerhouse.