Tips for monarch difficulty

[afa2000]

Hi everybody,

I'm doing pretty good at prince and just decided to try monarch. I usually dont like to go war until I got a decent economy, so I can afford an army. I dont like specialists either, thats a lot of micromanagement. Point is, AI beats me in everything: army, tech, gold, number of cities, thats freaking unfair. Settings are: Huyana or Hannibal as a leader, epic speed, terra/pangaea/lakes small map ( one of these, of course ), default or 18 opponents, all other settings default.

I have read some articles about emperor/deity strategies and all of them are about SE or very early wars or exploiting some of AI weakness. I didnt need to play like that at prince or under, is it so essential at monarch or above ? Firaxis could make difficult levels based on AI improvements, not giving them huge bonuses, asking us to exploit some of their ridiculous weakness, like making crazy quechua rushes, even with research slider going very low. Anyways, if i try a quechua rush, they got axemen after i make my 4 quechua

Ok, enough crying, back to my strategy. Here comes a summary:

- As financial, lots of cottages
- As Huyana, I found Hinduism and judaism, but dont switch just to avoid early enemies
- Build 2 or 3 cities ( AI always settle another city right next to mine though, that really pisses me off )
- build oracle and found theology,
- With prophets i build shrines for cash
- Sometimes i build great wall ( for GG in my territory ) or Stonehenge for more GPP IF I'm playing as Huyana.
- Build army as much as my economy lets me, IE, science slider at least at 70 %.

Consequences:
- AI always outtechs me, specially research freaks like Mansa Musa
- AI is always overpowered, specially military freaks like Montezuma
- AI always overexpand, specially "expansive" freaks like Shaka or Catherine
- AI always wants huge advantages on trades. Kublai Khan wanted something like 2-3 beakers for one mine.

I always get wiped out when they got cavalry/rifles when I just got gunpowder. Is Monarch or above really supposed to be played by exploiting AI or am I missing something ?

 

[futurehermit]

usually dont like to go war until I got a decent economy, so I can afford an army. I dont like specialists either, thats a lot of micromanagement.

This is your problem right here. Higher levels are (generally) about early warfare. If you don't have a neighbour on your doorstep then build some cities yourself, but prepare for war.

USE SPECIALISTS. Lightbulbing is one of the main advantages you can have at higher levels and if you don't do it you are handcuffing yourself.

With lightbulbing I am often first to cavalry (by a fair margin) and I AM the one doing the damage with cavalry, not the other way around.

Check out some of the threads I've posted around here. There's one from awhile back called something like "for those interested in the specialist economy: win this game". In that game, I provide the player with cavalry ca. 600-800AD. You can do a lot of damage in that window before the AI gets rifles. Also, I posted a thread a little while ago where I talk about my 1600AD Kublai Khan domination win...again, abusing cavalry.

This is all on monarch. But keep in mind cav are getting pushed back in BtS so things are going to change. I've heard grens are getting pushed back as well, so I'm not sure what early renaissance warfare is going to look like tbh. I may start warring more extensively during the medieval era with maces or knights.

 

[obsolete]

USE SPECIALISTS. Lightbulbing is one of the main advantages you can have at higher levels and if you don't do it you are handcuffing yourself.

I suppose, for the way MOST players go about, this is ok. But I'm not so sure all player styles are handicapped by not lightbulbing.

As for the GW, I think if you are ONLY building the wall for increased GGs, you are really hurting yourself bad. Get your precious early years going with something much superior. You want a much better return on your hammer investment. Monarch and up doesn't have that much room for being fancy and building wonders for such little gains. And even if you have the resources to do something, DON'T get fancy and build C. Itza (Chicken Pizza?) just because you found stone near by.

I'm not saying NEVER build it, but for God's sake, make sure your RETURN on hammer investment is worth it. Most players just ASSUME everything is worth it that is available.

I've seen people posting screen shots where they had cities building Observatories, despite the fact they had already created the internet project and was using that for 100% their science gains. That's not just bad hammer investment, it's....... attrocious.

 

[stuge]

Don't get hung up on the slider. The number of beakers on the domestic advisor's screen matters, whereas whether you're set to 70% or 50% doesn't.

Being aggressive pays off. You don't have to war all the time, just ensure that you have as much land as the biggest AI. Fighting early war of conquest requires decent economical management.

 

[Charou]

I usually dont like to go war until I got a decent economy, so I can afford an army.

You should not wait until then.
Warring brings some booty, that will pay for your army for some times.
Extortion and pillaging help too. That keeps u afloat on the short term.
You can definitely go to war in order to improve you economy (mid~long term goal).
but you will experience in the meantime some slowing down.
New ressources and new lands will increase your GNP.

Secondly, If you wait til gunpowder, you must invest tons of hammer to have a chance to hurt the AI. Earlier in the game while there isnt much tech gap, the cost is more reasonnable.
As said Obsolete, it all about making the best return on investment.


I never won peacefully on monarch. Might be feasible, I think.

 

[futurehermit]

You can win peacefully if you go for diplomatic or cultural. Space race is a possibility if you have some good land and don't get boxed in early. But in most cases you need at least one early war to get enough land (around 15 cities) to be able to win space comfortably. It is doable with 10-12 cities as well, although if a financial leader has a large empire they can give you a run for your money.

Re: lightbulbing. You don't HAVE to lightbulb, but it can help A LOT. Having cavalry ca. 600-800AD (prior to Beyond the Sword anyways ) can be huge and doing it without lightbulbing is difficult.

 

[r_rolo1]

I never won peacefully on monarch. Might be is feasible, I think.

I already won a couple of times on Monarch without shooting a bullet, but I must confess it was it the Lonely hearths club 2 and 4 ( isolated starts ). I liked the LHC 2 because of that, because it was with a agg leader, Shaka and I (and some others , like willpax ) won by space . But in a pangea, when you are cramped early by the AI, is hard to not have a early war and win the game .

 

[Uncle E]

Aloha afa2000 - welcome to the boards!

I'm kind of in the same boat as you are ... long time prince player who finally moved to monarch. Monarch really made me stop the bad habits that i got playing prince.

I'm playing lizzy now and like the financial / philo combo w/ her banks and redcoats. Here are a few things that I have done differently:

- I haven't built any wonders this game!

- I went for BW first to get axemen to defend my cities and prep for war.

- I pushed hard to expand by building/chopping lots of settlers and making at least one worker per city, sometimes 2 if its a jungle city

- I went BW, Wheel, Pottery (cottages), Writing and then Alphabet. Backfilled techs by trading writing and then getting a 4 for 1 for alphabet.

- Then went Drama (use theaters to pop my borders) and then math & music for the GA which I pop for usually Literature ... I then usually get to philo first and backfill again while using my first GS to pop Paper or take a huge chunk off education ... after nearly 10 restarts on the same game, I finally teched to Liberalism first and now am the tech leader.

Hope this helps and is something you can relate to

 

[obsolete]

Re: lightbulbing. You don't HAVE to lightbulb, but it can help A LOT. Having cavalry ca. 600-800AD (prior to Beyond the Sword anyways ) can be huge and doing it without lightbulbing is difficult.

Getting cav TOO early becomes a problem. Cities are not up to the production or size you want them to be, etc. I tend to aim mine for 1300-1500. I just want to make sure I get liberalsim first to snatch nationalism with it. I save gunpowerder for last and then I'll upgrade 20+ horsearchers to cavlary in one turn. Next.. I plow the road.

The AI has bigger cities with a lot better booty in the later years. Means my extra price for city collection has so much better returns than normal. I also can whip bigger buildings as well. I suppose another advantage with cav later, is the AI makes the mistake of building muskets. Cavarly BEATS muskets. And Cav with Pinch against muskets is well... a joke... But the stupid AI doesn't know that.

 

[futurehermit]

Getting cav TOO early becomes a problem.

I heartily disagree. The earlier the better. The earlier you own your own continent the better, or if pangaea the earlier you sweep the landmass the faster you win.

You can always grow the cities yourself if you are going space and you can do a better job of it than the AI who likes to build farms all over the place (good for dom, bad for space)

 

[Carnage04]

I am trying to get better at Monarch...I win maybe 20% of the time and I do have to say that you must attack very early in the game. The games that I do win I usually have an enemy capital VERY close to mine that I can rush. If there isn't a capital close to mine, I end up getting beat out for good land before I can drop a fourth city. Sitting with three cities (One usually just developing and not so worthwhile) limits ability to produce war units and makes it harder to plow through first an AI's weak cities and later an AI's capital.

 

[futurehermit]

If you don't have an enemy close to you, there are two options as I see it:

1) Beeline currency via col and chop/whip settlers (great wall helps here) and workers and expand like crazy. Then recover by chopping/whipping courthouses/markets and growing cottages. Once you recover you will be on par and then eventually surpass the AIs (you can plan a renaissance war as well).

2) Beeline literature with 3 cities and build the great library. Then CoL and get courthouses down while building another 3-5 cities. Then lightbulb your way to the early renaissance and attack your closest neighbour.

Either way if you don't have a close neighbour you're probably better off going space.

The exception here is cultural. If you don't have a close neighbour, that can be good for cultural. Just build your 9 (depending on map size) cities and watch your diplomacy.

 

[afa2000]

Thanks for your answers. Futurehermit, I followed your advice about early wars. Started another game with Hannibal - small pangaea 18 civs. Got BW first, made 4 axemen and took Monty's capital, which was very close to mine, after a few turns got his second city too. I saw some of Hatty's cities unprotected, so i got one of her cities too and culture flipped one of Roosevelt's cities. Total 5 cities and a large army, needless to say i was broke, 30 % research slider, still far away from currency or CS. I could keep on warring, but maintenance costs were already high. Should I keep on war, get slider to 0 % and start to use speciallists ? ( i already researched writting, but didnt build any library yet ) Or should I stop and start to improve my land peacefully ?

obsolete , I build GW for increased GG points ( with 18 civs at monarch I'll fight many wars in my territory ), GEs ( maybe for some good late wonder, like Pentagon ). Do you really think its a bad investment ?

Fighting early war of conquest requires decent economical management.

That's the problem. How to get a decent economy if I didnt research neither currency nor CS ( courthouses ) ? Didnt found any religions either, so no shrines. Cottages still immature.

but you will experiencing in the meantime some slowing down.
New ressources and new lands will increase your GNP.

Like I said, slider got to 30 %. New cities take too long to become profitable.

Uncle_E , thanks. I'm thinking about Lizzy too, she seems to be the best choice to stay competitive with AI. About your strategy, I usually do something like that, but how are you doing after gunpowder ? Thats when they become too advanced. I get chemistry a bit later than them, then I fall behind and they start to bully me with their cavalry horde.

I am trying to get better at Monarch...I win maybe 20% of the time and I do have to say that you must attack very early in the game. The games that I do win I usually have an enemy capital VERY close to mine that I can rush.

Thats what I did, but cant find a way to afford so high maintenance in the beginning.

1) Beeline currency via col and chop/whip settlers (great wall helps here) and workers and expand like crazy.

AI ALWAYS gets all good spots before I can settle my third city, even on standard maps. No matter how fast I am, if I settle a third city on a good spot, they will settle another VERY close to mine, even if its a crap spot, they just want to expand. If they are creative, I'm owned. I wonder how AI can do so good even settling on ice, with one or two resources and a few worthless tundra.

 

[futurehermit]

Should I keep on war, get slider to 0 % and start to use speciallists ? ( i already researched writting, but didnt build any library yet ) Or should I stop and start to improve my land peacefully ?

It would help if you would show screenshots and talk us through one of your games then I could be more constructive in my help.

With a close neighbour I would: Build 1 city to claim copper. Crank axes 6-12 and take the neighbour's cities, razing any that are too far away, but keeping the capital, holy cities, and cities that can pay for themselves (e.g., have a gold pit). Then I would beeline at least currency (run specialists, work cottages, run deficit research from war booty) and maybe code of laws (for courthouses) before moving on to second opponent. You can't expand too far without currency and code of laws or you will break your economy beyond repair. Once you have currency and code of laws though you can go nuts. Just be sure to slap down enough cottages and run scientists/merchants to supplement when necessary to keep your economy humming along.

 

[OldDays]

1. You don't need to build wonders! The better way is to conquer them. (Of course, when building a wonder that is providing good benefits for a cheap price like Stonehenge when you have stone for example it can be ok)

2. Go warmonger in the early days as much as you can and try to snag all barb cities within reach if you can afford it.

3. Take care of your economy. When you don't build wonders you can build more troops and infrastructure to support more cities.

My 3

 

[jeejeep]

- As Huyana, I found Hinduism and judaism, but dont switch just to avoid early enemies
- Build 2 or 3 cities ( AI always settle another city right next to mine though, that really pisses me off )
- build oracle and found theology,
- With prophets i build shrines for cash

Not sure I really understand this. You are not adopting a religion, correct? Then why found so many? If it is only for the gold you get from shrines, I'd say it is not worth it. You could get much more out of getting some non-prophet great people (GS maybe) and researching military or economy-related technologies. Also Code of Laws would be a much better choice from the oracle than Theology.

- Sometimes i build great wall ( for GG in my territory ) or Stonehenge for more GPP IF I'm playing as Huyana.

Also not sure about the great wall, but it may be necassary with that many civs on a small map. With default number of opponents it is probably a waste of time.

I think that if you want to not have to war, you need to try less opponents or a larger map size. Playing any map other then huge with 18 opponents is going to require war. Play standard or small with the default number of opponents, and it is possible to win on monarch without early war.

Obviously it will be difficult to go for domination, but you still have a good shot at cultural, diplomatic, or space race. I have won all victories (except for conquest) on monarch without early war. It is not the war that is necessary. What is necessary is that you build up a strong base of 9 fairly good cities. With a good tech path and good GP usage, anything is possible. Obviously, if someone boxes you in after 3 cities, you have to go to war to get to 9. However, this should not happen too often if you try to settle aggressively by quickly grabbing spots that you think the AI will soon settle in. You can always backfill closer sites later.

The problem (for you) is that to win monarch peacefully you have to really optimize your empire. This means running specialists (not necessarily a SE, just running some in food-rich cities), and knowing how to use the GP you generate optimally. This is difficult and not learned easily, especially for someone who dislikes micromanagement

In summary, the problem I see for you is that it is not possible to win monarch on such a crowded map without early war or good use of specialists. You will be boxed in early and eventually overrun. No offense, but if you don't want to change your style or map settings you might want to stay on prince. That is not a put-down, I doubt I could win such a map without early war. I am merely suggesting that you may need to rethink the way you play or your map settings.

Not sure if you got much out of this, it is late and I'm rambling a little, but I hope it helps you in some way.

 

[Quornix]

Yeah, if you're playing with 18 civs on a small or standard map, then you've got an enemy capital close enough for an early rush or two, guaranteed. If three of your first four cities are capitals (the fourth being your second city, if needed, to secure your source of copper or horses), you're not going to have much trouble economically. Also, you aren't going to get any use out of the GW's barbarian protection, since there won't be anywhere for barbarians to come from by the time you can build it.

Try playing as Cyrus, and declare war on everyone (yes, multiple wars) nearby as soon as you have horses hooked up, and about 2 immortals per city for active defense (the AI will usually only send one unit at you at a time this early, so one can heal while the other attacks). Get BW while you're getting the horses hooked up, and camp near the copper sites.

The AI will usually send an archer and a settler, even into an active war. Immortals eat archers for breakfast (it's one of their bonuses), and you have a steady supply of free workers. If they built the city before you got there, they still will usually only have that one archer. Then take a capital or three, since, without copper, they're defended by.... ARCHERS. Since you declared war well before you had an actual stack, then if someone does become a threat, they'll almost always be willing to take a peace treaty, and the 10 turns will have long since elapsed.

Flanking is your friend on this. With flanking, you can attack at fairly low odds if you have a couple of immortals, and you get 2 GG points for every withdrawl, and 4-10 GG points for every lucky victory, since GG points are based on earned XP, and XP is based on odds of victory. Your immortals will level up fast with Charismatic, and you'll get a GG or two early on, for better immortals (this early, and without big stacks, settle them in your primary city, most likely your capital, rather that building a Medic 3).

EDIT: You were joking about 18 civs on a small map, right? Because I just tried it out, and my capital's borders touched no less than FOUR other capital's borders on the first pop. What second city? Peaceful expansion? There was a some one tile wide gaps between the capitals where I could move my scout for a while, and that means 3 squares from each capital, but even those were few and far between.

Also, at least with the AI mod I'm using (Yakk's version of Blake's Better AI, aggressive AI), the enemy capitals were defended by half a dozen archers apiece, since they couldn't expand, which made the immortal rush a whole lot harder. Also no picking off roving settlers. Although I've seen bigger stacks in general, this was more than usual, before a war.

 

[afa2000]

Nvm, I started again using an early quechua rush. Lol, that was easy ! Took Izzy's capital ( hindu holy city ) with only 4 quechuas, then shaka and ragnar. 5 very good cities in a few turns. Found budhism. Slider dropped to 30 % again, then i stopped warring, built some cottages with my new captured workers. Chopped stonehenge. Hinduism started to spread a lot, so i switched for diplomatic bonuses, only hatty switched to budhism, that was not a problem. Got a great prophet, so i could get enough gold from shrine to get slider back to 60 %. Got alphabet and could be the first in tech race again. I sent some hindu missionaries, so most civs were hindus. Wang kon found confucionism, but my missionaries were faster than them, so all civs stayed as my brothers in faith. I had a lot of workers, so I chopped more wonders, while making some axemen in one city. After a few turns, took both Victorias cities ( one of them was judaism holy city ) and flipped some Mehmed's too. Almost everybody was pleased with me, after currency I started asking for gold. After feudalism, GK declared war on mansa and he asked to be my vassal. I accepted and took 3 GK's cities, he was gone. Found taoism and islam. By that time, only Wang kon was not hindu. Game was so easy that I couldnt believe it was monarch. I was very very advanced and was about to take control of all western cities, so after getting grenadiers I declared war on Saladin and took his 4 cities. A few turns after I declared on Cyrus and won a domination victory by 1200 AD. Didnt need to use SE, but early war made the difference.

Not sure I really understand this. You are not adopting a religion, correct? Then why found so many? If it is only for the gold you get from shrines, I'd say it is not worth it. You could get much more out of getting some non-prophet great people (GS maybe) and researching military or economy-related technologies. Also Code of Laws would be a much better choice from the oracle than Theology.

No, i'm not, at least till i can convert most. Actually shrines supported my early wars. Converting most of civs to the same religion then switching gave me essential diplomatic bonuses, so I could avoid being declared and asked for cheap technologies and gold without diplomatic penalty. About CoL, why is it a better choice than Theology, once it costs less beakers ? Theology also let me switch to theocracy, so I could get 2 promotion units from every city ( I build barracks on every city ).

I think that if you want to not have to war, you need to try less opponents or a larger map size. Playing any map other then huge with 18 opponents is going to require war. Play standard or small with the default number of opponents, and it is possible to win on monarch without early war.

Actually it was easier with 18 opponents, because they cant expand too much and become OP. Small with default opponents means some AI getting all good lands much faster, boosting production and a large army against me.

Obviously it will be difficult to go for domination, but you still have a good shot at cultural, diplomatic, or space race. I have won all victories (except for conquest) on monarch without early war. It is not the war that is necessary. What is necessary is that you build up a strong base of 9 fairly good cities. With a good tech path and good GP usage, anything is possible. Obviously, if someone boxes you in after 3 cities, you have to go to war to get to 9. However, this should not happen too often if you try to settle aggressively by quickly grabbing spots that you think the AI will soon settle in. You can always backfill closer sites later.

How can you be faster than AI if they start with a worker ? Anyways, if you do, they will settle another city next to yours.

The problem (for you) is that to win monarch peacefully you have to really optimize your empire. This means running specialists (not necessarily a SE, just running some in food-rich cities), and knowing how to use the GP you generate optimally. This is difficult and not learned easily, especially for someone who dislikes micromanagement

In summary, the problem I see for you is that it is not possible to win monarch on such a crowded map without early war or good use of specialists. You will be boxed in early and eventually overrun. No offense, but if you don't want to change your style or map settings you might want to stay on prince. That is not a put-down, I doubt I could win such a map without early war. I am merely suggesting that you may need to rethink the way you play or your map settings.

Agreed. Actually thats what I did, changed my gameplay doing an early rush. I feel like exploiting AI, but what can I do ? Key was getting more cities than any AI, even falling behind in tech race, till your cities could develop and you be the first one again.

 

[afa2000]

Try playing as Cyrus, and declare war on everyone (yes, multiple wars) nearby as soon as you have horses hooked up, and about 2 immortals per city for active defense (the AI will usually only send one unit at you at a time this early, so one can heal while the other attacks). Get BW while you're getting the horses hooked up, and camp near the copper sites.

Thanks for tips, but horses were really hard to find at pangaea. I won a domination victory and didnt find any horses.

EDIT: You were joking about 18 civs on a small map, right? Because I just tried it out, and my capital's borders touched no less than FOUR other capital's borders on the first pop. What second city? Peaceful expansion? There was a some one tile wide gaps between the capitals where I could move my scout for a while, and that means 3 squares from each capital, but even those were few and far between.

At lakes map i can build at least 2 good cities, at pangaea one very close to my capital. Its hard to me to expand, but it should be for AI too. Not true, once they settle everywhere.

Also, at least with the AI mod I'm using (Yakk's version of Blake's Better AI, aggressive AI), the enemy capitals were defended by half a dozen archers apiece, since they couldn't expand, which made the immortal rush a whole lot harder. Also no picking off roving settlers. Although I've seen bigger stacks in general, this was more than usual, before a war.

Thats why I consider very early rushes as an exploit. If AI were improved, they wouldnt let it happen.

 

[jeejeep]

About CoL, why is it a better choice than Theology, once it costs less beakers ? Theology also let me switch to theocracy, so I could get 2 promotion units from every city ( I build barracks on every city ).

I should have been more clear. CoL is much better for economy, Theology better for war. Before you were saying that you were stuck at 30% research and couldn't get to CoL or currency. An oracle slingshot would at least enable you to get one of them. If, as in the game you posted about, you have your economy under control, I agree that Theology is better. However, if I was at 30% research I would rather have CoL.