Why do I suck, opinions please

[Phite11]

First of all, I've been playing civ since the very first civilization 1. I was quite good at civ 1 and civ2, got decent (could win at prince, never better) at civ3, and now I clearly suck at civ4. I've noticed the very high level of complexity in managing cities and civs in civ4, as opposed to previous civ game versions.

Anyway I've tried a few different strategies but none have worked and I cannot seem to win at the prince level.

My usual strategy is as follows:
1) choose a leader who is first off financial, and often times I choose aggressive also
2) expand expand expand
2a)build cities using workers (and cottages)
2b) build settlers and expand as quickly as i can while still building existing cities
3a) when I hit the borders of other civs, I fortifiy, build up military and try to expand via conquest.

I've tried different variations of step #4 such as
4b) do not expand via conquest, but instead play nice with other civs politically, and try to build my civ as quickly as possible from technology, financial, and cultural (in that order)

When I choose 4a, often times I end up in a long drawn out war in which both me and my war enemy fall way behind technology of other civs.
when I choose 4b, I get taken over by other civs militarily since I haven't build mine enough to be a threat (or defend against others well enough).

I'm not sure if my problem is city management, or overall civ management, or just bad tactics and strategy.

Any constructive advice would be appreciated. I must have played 30 games in the past few weeks and all seem to end up similarly even when I try different strategies. I have read some of the strategy guides posted here and tried some of the advice that has worked (ie..cottages for financial expantion), but nothing seems to be working.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Mutineer]

Civ 4 early on is about ballance with expancion and upkeep.

4 cities is a recomended cise befor discovery of CoL or Currency.

Your problem most lickly is overexpansion.

 

[The Flame]

Just like Mutineer said, its about balance. Build some cities, steady your finances, build more, etc.

In this game it's not about immediate expansion, but about balance management.

 

[Alsark]

Don't take my opinion as a good or even partially decent one - I'm still on noble difficulty, but I'm going to tell you what I hear other people say...

Especially on higher difficulties, apparently, EARLY conquest is key - NOT late conquest. The problem I think you're facing is that you're getting into wars too late, and by then, the enemy problem has longbowmen, at which point the battles aren't very fun. From what I've read, you want to get into wars as soon as you get axemen, and don't even use swordsmen. Axemen aren't much weaker than swordsmen, so with a nice stack of axemen you can take over at least the smaller enemy cities. When you get catapults through construction, you can bombard the main enemy cities and then have your axemen do the rest of the work. Take over like two civilizations like this and you should be fine. You'll be given plenty of gold, cities, and workers as a result, and be given a bit of a jump forward, too. You don't even have to play the rest of the game in an aggressive manner after this, because you'll already have a bit of a lead. Also, the enemies are much less aggressive early on in the game (they refuse to wage war themselves until the late Bronze Age).

This is just what I've heard from others... I'm a peacemonger, and frankly, I suck at the game, so just make of it what you will.

:Edit: Also, I've read that city specialization is key. Have one city be a production city, one city a great person farm (lots of farms and specialists), and a good deal of other cities commerce-focused. I don't exactly follow this strategy, either. Maybe the fact that I don't follow the strategies I read about is why I suck so badly, heh.

 

[Phite11]

Civ 4 early on is about ballance with expancion and upkeep.

4 cities is a recomended cise befor discovery of CoL or Currency.

Your problem most lickly is overexpansion.

Thanks, I will try that.

I have to wonder however, how other civs get so many points so quickly.

To the other posters point, I often to wage wars early but wait until I get swordsman (I try to get iron working first so I know which territory to try to claim with my conquest).

 

[Cam_H]

Phite11,

Welcome to CivFanatics!

You have mentioned that you have read some guides, but if you've yet to check out Sisiutil's Strategy Guide, it would be one well worth going through.

Sisiutil has set out numerous games through his 'All Leaders Challenge' series, which gives you a good stage-by-stage progress through a game for many of the leaders. Perhaps pick one or two, and read through them for some different views and insights as to how strategies can manifest themselves typically to good effect.

Just on the expansion issue - bear in mind that four cities is very 'rule of thumb', but gives players a feel for a generally good growth target for the Ancient and early Classical Eras. Code of Laws (Courthouses, Forbidden Palace, Caste System) and Currency (extra trade route, can trade for gold, Markets) are two important technologies that can address your limitations to expand, but there are loads of other factors that can be an effective 'work around' also.

The AI tribes play on 'Noble' level, so their initial scores will quickly become higher in the first stages of the game as the human player begins handicapped at Prince+. Bear in mind that the score is only 'so' useful as a guide to the relative strengths of tribes.

Best of luck!

 

[OTAKUjbski]

To add to the other accurate responses, I'd like to point out a few details on something that cleared up and reigned in my expansion: City Maintenance!

Every city costs you based on two factors:

• Distance from capital. For every 3 tiles your city is away from your capital, it costs 0.5 . For every 8 population over 1, distance maintenance increases by 0.5 . This number slightly increases on higher-than-Noble & smaller-than-Standard game settings.
  
  
• # of cities. This number is the same for all cities and is equal to the number of cities in your empire times .21. This number caps at 6 . It also increases on higher difficulties.

If a city can't pay for itself upon inception or very shortly thereafter, you need to weigh just how much its economic impact is really worth to you.

So how much is that new city going to cost you?

d * ( .1667 ) + ( 2n + 1 ) * .21

I.E. - a 5th city at distance 8 would cost your empire:

8 * ( .1667 ) + ( 10 + 1 ) * .21 = 3.64 @ population 1

a 6th city at distance 8 would cost your empire another:

8 * ( .1667 ) + ( 12 + 1 ) * .21 = 4.06 @ population 1​

--------

Blah, blah, blah, huh? Nobody likes math I hear.

Basically, if your 4th, 5th and 6th cities cannot generate 8, 9, & 10 , respectively, shortly after being built, they're not even paying for themselves and are thus a drain on your economy -- it's up to you to determine if you can handle it and if it's worth it.

So how do you make a city pay for itself?

Currency = +1 (at least +1 per city)
Courthouse = -50% maintenance in the city
Library, Market, etc. = I include both % modifiers, b/c both affect the actual value of a coin
Foreign trade = cities grabbing extra resources are worth whatever you're getting from said resources (like or / trades)
Strategy = not all cities are valued simply on ... canals and high or cities are priceless, imo


-- my 2c ... hope that helps

 

[Swedishguy]

Concentrate more on infrastructure, but don't completely neglect expansion, either!

 

[cabert]

Try this :
- Settle where you start
- build a worker while teching to immediate needs (agri, fishing, hunting, depending on what you have in the initial land. Note that if you have nothing for the worker to do, it may be best to build a warrior)
- build a warrior to open the way for your settler (Do you know what fogbusting is?), while teching to Bronze working
- build a settler, using the best hammer+food tiles (you need to check what your citizens do once in a while )
- settle near or on (not the best idea usually, because of the loss of hammers but sometimes it's necessary) copper.
- build barracks, while teching to currency (maths first are needed)
- build axemen while exploring with your warriors.
- when you have 6+ axes and you have spotted a victim, go for him.
- raze his cities if they are not good commerce cities or "wonderful" (meaning with a wonder in them) or holy cities. If you start to lose steam, sue for peace. If you have currency, you can extort money from your victim .

Next tech : construction. You don't really need more techs , but after that, try to get Code of laws.
Build catapults (and elephants if ivory available).
Go for another war as soon as you have 7 catapults and some support troops (1 elephant, 3/4 axes, 1 spear).
If you cannot maintain more than 10% research at break even point (= losing gold at 10%), look for another victim.
Extort money, pillage, burn cities.

This is the barbarian version of civilization .

 

[vale]

d * ( .1667 ) + ( 2n + 1 ) * .21​

Assuming the numbers you have talked about here (a .1667 per tile distance from a palace cost, a .21 per city number of cities cost, and a cap of 6 for the number of cities cost (I'm 90% sure I've seen higher than 6 before though)) are accurate, I'm slightly confused how you arrive at this formula. The distance factor looks correct, but when you found city number n, the number of cities cost in n-1 cities increases by .21 and the number of cities cost in your newly founded city is .21n. So by my math the cost of the new city would be

d * ( .1667 ) + ( 2n - 1 ) * .21 for cities 1-29 and

d * ( .1667 ) + 6 for cities 29 and on.

Basically, if your 4th, 5th and 6th cities cannot generate 8, 9, & 10 , respectively, shortly after being built, they're not even paying for themselves and are thus a drain on your economy

This conclusion also confuses me. If the city produces commerce equal to its net cost, it is paying for itself right? You will need to adjust your slider, but your net commerce should remain constant at that break even point. So that 4th city at distance 8 that is costing 2.8036 per turn only needs to generate 2.8036 per turn to pay for itself. Similarly that 6th city only needs to generate 3.6436 per turn. Or am I missing something?

One of the overlooked costs of REXing is not the maintenance costs of the new cities, but the opportunity cost of building the settlers that create them. You are sacrificing developement of your economy both within cities (stagnated growth, lack of infrastructure) and beyond(fewer workers, fewer developed tiles).

 

[Swedishguy]

Try this :
- Settle where you start
- build a worker while teching to immediate needs (agri, fishing, hunting, depending on what you have in the initial land. Note that if you have nothing for the worker to do, it may be best to build a warrior)
- build a warrior to open the way for your settler (Do you know what fogbusting is?), while teching to Bronze working
- build a settler, using the best hammer+food tiles (you need to check what your citizens do once in a while )
- settle near or on (not the best idea usually, because of the loss of hammers but sometimes it's necessary) copper.
- build barracks, while teching to currency (maths first are needed)
- build axemen while exploring with your warriors.
- when you have 6+ axes and you have spotted a victim, go for him.
- raze his cities if they are not good commerce cities or "wonderful" (meaning with a wonder in them) or holy cities. If you start to lose steam, sue for peace. If you have currency, you can extort money from your victim .

Next tech : construction. You don't really need more techs , but after that, try to get Code of laws.
Build catapults (and elephants if ivory available).
Go for another war as soon as you have 7 catapults and some support troops (1 elephant, 3/4 axes, 1 spear).
If you cannot maintain more than 10% research at break even point (= losing gold at 10%), look for another victim.
Extort money, pillage, burn cities.

This is the barbarian version of civilization .

You know, horse archers are usually better than axemen. Axemen are what you use when you don't have horses.

 

[cabert]

You know, horse archers are usually better than axemen. Axemen are what you use when you don't have horses.

HA require HBR, archery, animal husbandry.
axemen require bronze worlking.

what is best? for an early war, I won't wait for HAs.
later, the bulk of the force are catapults (in this strat at least), and those are moving 1 tile /turn only. So what's the point in having HA?

 

[vale]

Horseback Riding is an expensive dead end tech though. If you research just Horseback Riding, its going to be slow to build your army without chopping or whipping, if you research to Bronze Working as well its going to be slow because the time it takes to develop all the necessary techs.

 

[Swedishguy]

So what's the point in having HA?

They're better at capturing cities, even if they have -10% when attacking them.

 

[cabert]

They're better at capturing cities, even if they have -10% when attacking them.

that's not true
Strength 6 for HA, +30% with combat3 = 7,8 strength for HA.

Let's check the potential enemies:
- archer, CG1, fortified : 3 +20% +50% from city + 25% from fortified +10% (HA penalty vs cities)= 6,15
- spearman, combat 1 : 4 + 100% vs HA + 25% from fortified +10% (HA penalty vs cities): 9,4
- LB, CG 1, fortified : 6 + 20% + 25% from city+25% fortified +10% (HA penalty vs cities): 10,8

you can win vs archers, but a single spearman will stop your advance.

for comparison purposes (leaving the spear who only gives Xps to axes):
strength 5 for axe, CR3.
- archer (same as before) : 3+20%+50%+25%-75%(CR3) = 3,6
- LB : 6+20%+25%+25% -75% (CR3) = 5,7.

A/D for :
- HA vs archer : 1,27
- axe vs archer : 1,38
- HA vs spear : 0,83
- HA vs LB : 0,72
- axe vs LB : 0,88.

so, who's better at city taking?

Of course, your HA won't even be combat 3 yet, when the first axe wielding war is over.

If you don't use the HA's speed bonus, it's not worth building them.
If you do, you don't go for catapults, since they won't find the front in due time.

 

[UncleJJ]

cabert's entirely right. Axes are better at city taking than HA in almost all circumstances. And they cost 35 hammers versus 50 for the HA. The HA needs a stable to get 2 promotions to be effective and they are better in a pillaging type war, although I find pillaging a waste of time. An axe only needs a barracks to be effective.

If you don't have copper close enough (happens perhaps 25% of games) then going on to Iron Working will make the swordsman available and he is even better at taking cities defended by anything other than an axeman, which the AI seldom uses. So a mixed stack of swordsmen and axemen makes for an effective first war if copper is not close.

 

[Onagan]

I love the HA for beating up the barbarians, quick movement is great.

 

[UncleJJ]

I love the HA for beating up the barbarians, quick movement is great.

I find chariots are more cost effective at controlling barbarians. I like the quick movement and they are half the cost and nearly as good if you catch the barbs in the open. Two chariots are better than a single HA.

 

[Welnic]

Assuming the numbers you have talked about here (a .1667 per tile distance from a palace cost, a .21 per city number of cities cost, and a cap of 6 for the number of cities cost (I'm 90% sure I've seen higher than 6 before though)) are accurate, I'm slightly confused how you arrive at this formula. The distance factor looks correct, but when you found city number n, the number of cities cost in n-1 cities increases by .21 and the number of cities cost in your newly founded city is .21n. So by my math the cost of the new city would be

d * ( .1667 ) + ( 2n - 1 ) * .21 for cities 1-14 and

d * ( .1667 ) + 6 for cities 15 and on.



This conclusion also confuses me. If the city produces commerce equal to its net cost, it is paying for itself right? You will need to adjust your slider, but your net commerce should remain constant at that break even point. So that 4th city at distance 8 that is costing 2.8036 per turn only needs to generate 2.8036 per turn to pay for itself. Similarly that 6th city only needs to generate 3.6436 per turn. Or am I missing something?

One of the overlooked costs of REXing is not the maintenance costs of the new cities, but the opportunity cost of building the settlers that create them. You are sacrificing developement of your economy both within cities (stagnated growth, lack of infrastructure) and beyond(fewer workers, fewer developed tiles).

He was saying that if you have N cities, how much would the next one cost. Not if the next city was N, how much would it cost. I do know on Prince when I have a huge empire running state property each city costs 6.

I agree with you on the break even point. If you are generating commerce that is equal to the increased maintenance then it is worth it to have the city. And you do get to count any multiplier buildings.

 

[vale]

I just saw that when applying the formula, he was saying a 5th city at distance 8 ... and subsituting n=5, which makes it seem like this is the 5th city established. To make it clear what this really means, he should say something like the 5th city besides the Capitol or something.