Two Tips New To Me

[Cicerosaurus]

Okay, to the experienced players here, these will no doubt be pretty standard and well known.

However, for any newer player they may come in handy.

1). If you have cornered the market in a luxury commodity e.g. sugar, try and ally yourself with any City state that may have the luxury. This ensure the AI needs to trade with you to obtain it- you can have a greater range of luxuries to select as the AI generally has far more territory than a city state.

2. If you are in a war with the AI attacking your city and you have adopted oligarchy (where your garrisoned units increase the city attack strength) ensure you garrison your troops before firing at th enemy. By this I mean if you have a crossbow that fired the previous turn, regarrison it before using the city attack. You can then use the crossbow after the city shoots (this will give an extra point or two to the city).

 

[Cheeseisgood]

1). If you have cornered the market in a luxury commodity e.g. sugar, try and ally yourself with any City state that may have the luxury. This ensure the AI needs to trade with you to obtain it- you can have a greater range of luxuries to select as the AI generally has far more territory than a city state.

Does this actually bother the AI? The only time I've seen them ever ask specifically for a resource is when they're begging for it for free. Generally if they ask for several resources in exchange for something (going to war with someone etc) the ones they ask for are generally interchangeable I think.

2. If you are in a war with the AI attacking your city and you have adopted oligarchy (where your garrisoned units increase the city attack strength) ensure you garrison your troops before firing at th enemy. By this I mean if you have a crossbow that fired the previous turn, regarrison it before using the city attack. You can then use the crossbow after the city shoots (this will give an extra point or two to the city).

Great tip, something I like to do.

 

[Cicerosaurus]

Does this actually bother the AI?



G

Don't know whether it bothers the AI, but if they are getting sugar from an AI they are not interested in trading (say) ivory to you for your sugar. it just allows a bit more scope in what you can get - especially important if happiness is at a premium- as it always is for me. I am a terrible expansionist.

 

[CoolLizy]

1). If you have cornered the market in a luxury commodity e.g. sugar, try and ally yourself with any City state that may have the luxury. This ensure the AI needs to trade with you to obtain it- you can have a greater range of luxuries to select as the AI generally has far more territory than a city state.

In my experience, the AI usually has some 30 or so happiness with only a handful of luxury resources. They need the extra luxuries you trade it about as much as a fish in the ocean needs a glass of water. Id est, in single player games a monopoly is not usually as great as an advantage as it probably should be.

 

[fmlizard2]

1). If you have cornered the market in a luxury commodity e.g. sugar, try and ally yourself with any City state that may have the luxury. This ensure the AI needs to trade with you to obtain it- you can have a greater range of luxuries to select as the AI generally has far more territory than a city state.

I call this a "+1" scenario. Often, I have say, 4 sugar. I sell 3, with 1 remaining. Before, I would see a CS that had sugar and consider them a bad choice to ally. But, you can go ahead and buy that ally, sell your last sugar, and still have the bonus. Think of it as a discount on your alliance...with 250 taking you from friend to ally and 240 coming back in a resource sale, it is basically a free alliance

 

[FuryJack]

In my experience, the AI usually has some 30 or so happiness with only a handful of luxury resources. They need the extra luxuries you trade it about as much as a fish in the ocean needs a glass of water. Id est, in single player games a monopoly is not usually as great as an advantage as it probably should be.

This is how I view it as well. However, it only works as a +1 and never and a +2 or more (as you would trade those off anyways without any negative effects).

However, while the computer doesn't need more happiness, they always want more happiness. If they have more than 1 of a lux, they will trade if off based off their diplomatic relations (pretty sure anything neutral or above will yield a 1:1). If you ask for their last resource of something, they demand much more than a 1:1, because they suffer negative consequences from trading the last of the lux. They won't trade unless they have something to gain.

 

[FuryJack]

In my experience, the AI usually has some 30 or so happiness with only a handful of luxury resources. They need the extra luxuries you trade it about as much as a fish in the ocean needs a glass of water. Id est, in single player games a monopoly is not usually as great as an advantage as it probably should be.

Monopolies are huge advantages, especially early game. Say you have 8 wine and no one else has any. Depending on your happiness situation, you could trade off up to 8 of them for gold, which, in turn will fund RAs. Lets just assume it funds 6 RAs, which amounts to 3 full techs worth of science every 30 turns, 6 full techs if you have PT and Rationalism opener. That means you get 6 techs while each Civ you have an RA with gets .5-1 tech. I would consider a +5-5.5 net gain in techs per 30 turns a pretty big advantage.

 

[basta]

Monopolies are huge advantages, especially early game.

I find it hit-or-miss to unload 4 or more extras of any luxury at any point in the game, and even 3 early on can be difficult, and I'd much rather have a wide mix than a monopoly any day.

Early on you may not even meet enough civs lacking your dominant luxury to trade your extras with. Usually 3 civs are either fatally crippled by war or simply wiped off the map by late mid-game so if you have 4-6 of one luxury, you won't be able to profit much from it.

 

[Rpger29]

I generally find myself in this position around the start of ren. era. It seems to be pretty beneficial then, and I'll even settle/buy tiles I can't work to hold a monopoly or near-monopoly. By then I'm not so pressed for worker build time or money, and the added income is nice.

 

[Buccaneer]

I think not only monopolies are a good thing to attain but actually doable given the clustering of luxuries that some maps give you. This makes me a proponent of uneven distributions since it allows more strategic decision-making compared to even (i.e., everyone has about the same of everything) distrubutions. It not only forces alliances but could also force wars, not to mention the early grabs.

 

[Karpyan]

Monopolies can be an early-game advantage unless you have Arabia on the map. But I have to say they p*ss me off if they are calendar resources.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

I have found myself purposefully getting rid of my Happiness Luxuries early in the game so as to slow down the initial Golden Age event(s) until the point where my policies and or wonders are in place to Buff them

 

[bovinespy]

I have found myself purposefully getting rid of my Happiness Luxuries early in the game so as to slow down the initial Golden Age event(s) until the point where my policies and or wonders are in place to Buff them

I do the same thing. I hate to waste that first GA, plus you get cash as well. Win-win.

 

[Karpyan]

Apologies for resurrecting this thread. But do people deliberately go unhappy so as to delay a GA for +20% wonder production? This seems so counterproductive to me - weak growth will result in weaker production. And are we talking self-generated GAs or SPs? If an SP, liberty GA coincides with NC build - more important than most wonders.