Great reading so far. Most of my n00b errors have already been mentioned several times (refusing to use slavery, refusal to cut down trees, not knowing the difference between gold and commerce, religion-whoring). But here's a few more subtle gameplay mistakes I made that haven't been mentioned yet. For the benefit of newer players (or even experienced ones who didn't know this stuff), I'm including the corrective action.
* I didn't understand the difference between "requires copper" vs. "requires bronze-working," and same for iron, and for "iron or copper". This lead me to dismiss some units as being utterly worthless when in fact their worth was the fact that a source of the metal itself wasn't needed (eg. Dog Soldiers). Now I read all the UUs very closely, even when I think I know what they do already.
* I Would beeline to Bronze-Working to chop-rush my settlers while Capital was still 1-pop, instead of developing my food-techs and popping up to 4+ first. I now build worker first while researching applicable food techs, then warriors till at 4-5pop, fogbust with my warriors as well as place them into settlement spots in advance of the settlers. At 4-5pop, then I start with the settlers.
* I paid more attention to the slider than my net beaker/gold production. I was stuck in the mindset it had to be at least 70% science or I was failing at econ. This kept me from getting the optimal number of cities for fear I would throw off the percentage too far. Of course what's far more important is the net beaker production. Many games now I may be sitting at 40% science but at 500-1000 beakers before 1AD, I'm not worried.
* I used to build a wall in every city. Always. In fact, simply producing enough military units is enough of a deterrent for the AI that you don't need it, unless you want castles. Now I only build walls if I want the extra trade-routes from castles, or if I want the experience bonus for my seige weapons.
* I used to think that any non-coastal city was a complete waste and useful only for tying the others together. Now I'm much more impressed by workable tiles than I am the benefits of ocean access at the cost of half my BFC.
* Early early on, I used to roam with my settler for hundreds, sometimes even thousands of years, just looking for that ONE PERFECT SPOT for my capital. In later stages, I would never wander more than 1 square from my initial starting spot even if an optimal position would only cost me 1 turn. Granted, I still prefer to get the extra turn and settle, but occasionally it's worth 1 or 2 turns to get the BEST spot you can.
* Likewise, early in my noobhood, I would spread my cities far and wide, crippling my economy with maintenance costs. Later, I would build closer to home, but always refused to build another city if any useful squares overlapped. Nowadays sometimes I'll even go so far as to build them sharing 1/3 their BFC if it turns out there's a good enough net benefit, because you'll rarely, if ever, be in a position to use more than 2/3 your city tiles until so late in the game it's unlikely to make or break you.
* If I planned on attacking "early," with mounted units, I would delay my early attacks by literally dozens of turns just to make sure I had horseback riding and stables built. This of course gave the AI plenty of time to tech the necessary things to thwart my handful of skilled attackers, when I could have just overrun them with 3-4x as many units, or launched an earlier attack before they could tech up and fortify. Now I don't even bother with horseback riding unless I can get it as part of a trade later on when there's nothing else I want.
* If I got a GS early on, I would often bulb an expensive tech for no real reason other than to save myself a few turns worth of research. As a general rule, early GS should never be used for anything other than an academy or settled specialist. You'll get so much more out of them. Of course there are exceptions to every rule: certain early-win strategies might bank on bulbing an early tech, but chances are, if you're that good, the general rule of thumb is nothing new to you.
* I used to think Angkor Wat was the worst wonder in the game. It's actually an awesome empire-wide production booster.
* I used to think the Oracle to Code of Laws leap was a must-have, every game. Not only do you fare much better teching food instead, building warriors instead, and developing your capital instead, but attempting this leap might just end up crippling you with a bunch of useless techs and piles of gold when some other civ chops it first. You're also highly unlikely to score Buddhism...ever... Unless you're HC, cause HC gets everything. Always. Speaking of...
* I used to think HC was the worst leader ever. Nowadays, I know he's so overpowered that I feel dirty when playing him, even if it was random selection, because it's just sick how huge of an advantage he gets towards nearly any gameplay type.
* I didn't used to play on Random Leader. I would pick whichever one I -thought- was best at the time, and as a result, my skills suffered greatly, because honestly, who would voluntarily choose to play Suleimon, or Brennus, or Tokugowa outside of a Gauntlet Challenge? But playing on random forces you to learn the strengths, weaknesses, and tactical points of the other enemies you'll play against. Nowadays, I only choose a specific leader if I wish to test out a specific strategy or if I notice I suck at them and want to improve my understanding of their empire.
Nowadays, I play and often win, at Emperor level. I still have a long way to go before I can handle Immortal, and with CiV coming out soon, I suspect I'll never get to Immortal on Civ4 unless CiV just sucks (which I seriously doubt).
what the ****!
