Why do I suck, opinions please

[Jerrymander]

This is the barbarian version of civilization .

Nah, its the normal version of civilization
Axemen are the best units in the game. Period.

 

[Phite11]

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 .

This sounds like a perfect Civ strategy for me, the war monger. My only questions are:
1) what happens after you conquer 2+ civs and start falling way behind on techs (@10% research they will have longbows and macemen way before I will)?
2) What about city mgt? Is managing unhappiness during constant warring almost impossible given the fact that I wont have many civics to choose from?

 

[Murky]

I had a recent epiphany about CivIV; nearly everything can be calculated and planed for in advance. If you take the time to do the calculations you save yourself a lot of time and make fewer mistakes.

Things I calculate most frequently:

Time it takes to build something, especially early game wonders, workers and settlers.

The time it will take for a city to grow to the next size.

How long it will take a worker to do their tasks.

How long it will take to reach a certain level of technology.

How big of a stack and what it should consist of to take a given city or set of cities. Always calculate the odds of winning before laying siege to a city.

Distance cost and how much capturing a city will hurt the economy. This helps you to decide if you want to raze the city or not.

The game already calculates a lot of stuff for you but it isn't always accurate. I don't depend it for some things it does. I wouldn't trust it to calculate the odds of winning a battle unless they are in your favor by a good margin.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

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.

Phite,
I'm also playing at Prince difficulty. Some games go very well and others go very badly. Like you, I seem to have developed a style of play that works well in some situations, and not well in others.

You mention city management. I played for almost a year before I started paying attention to it. Out of sheer desperation, I chose to study the basics and learn to manipulate every aspect of it. It was an "eye opener" to say the least. I found that by managing a couple of parameters, I could build something quicker, increase commerce, increase food, grow population, shrink population etc.. all depending on what the current situation calls for.

I've also recently begun to pay more attention to city specialization, particularly the difference between commerce and production cities. There's a lot of good reading on this site in that regard. The mistake that I had been making, was that I was building infrastructure equally in all cities, i.e. I was building markets and banks in production cities, and building forges and factories in commerce cities. On the one hand, it would seem to be good policy to develop infrastructure, no matter what. But the result, in failing to specialize, was that I wasn't getting the full potential out of either of the two types of cities in real time. That leads to missed opportunities.

I agree with what others have written about expansion. Over-expansion too early ruins your economy and sometimes, there's no way to recover. One thing that I've done succesfully a number of times, was to found a religion and build Stonehenge. I find that by the time I'm ready to either settle or conquer my fifth or sixth city, I get a great prophet from Stonehenge. Then if I use him to build that great religious temple. The income from that great temple is often enough to keep my research from dipping below 70%.

Finally, there's the issue of war. It's been my experience that it's very hard to win with a good score in this game without going to war. I've had a number of "Julius Ceasar type scores" in Prince difficulty by warmongering. The trick is to time your periods of war and peace to get the maximum effect of both. In my opinion the game seems to be weighted toward a warmongering approach. What I find most interesting about this game isn't the warfare. I think the most interesting thing is the opportunity you have to choose how to build amidst multiple layers of chance, i.e. terrain, AI actions etc.. Each game is like a "living breathing thing." The warfare makes it more exciting and realistic in that what you build has that much more value as it was completed in a hostile world.

Anyway, there are many people writing great things on this site and I have a lot of respect for them. I'm not an expert in any sense. But I do spend hours and hours of my precious life playing this game. Good luck with it.

 

[cabert]

I don't know how people win the games so fast...I can come out on top but still takes a very long time.

I've tried playing on Prince, and can't seem to get very far. Not sure what I'm doing wrong but here is my most recent save if anyone can offer advice.

Here is the background of this game:
My Civ:
English / Victoria

Situation:
I was started on a semi-large island. I got 3 cities down fairly quickly but had trouble staying above 60-70% tech research so waited a while before creating a 4th and 5th city. I just started meeting other civs, and they are WAY ahead (ie..1500 points vs my 700 points, with roughly 5-7 techs more than I have). They have guilds, engineering and I don't, but will soon.

I have tried convincing/bribing the big dogs to make war with each other, but I have nothing to offer so it isn't working. At this point I was going to gather a large army and declare against one of the other 2 civs at the bottom of the points with me.

I get the feeling I'm not managing my cities very well, since it takes me a while to expand my empire with more cities. with a financial trait'ed leader I thought I'd be able to have many more cities by now.

isolated starts are a lot tougher than non-isolated ones.
try another map, like pangea, to have a better idea of the usual game.
After a while, you will manage isolated starts too. First by ignoring the 60% rule of thumb, then by lightbulbing your way to liberalism...

 

[d4m]

I love financial leaders, tho I am no expert, I'm still trying to get through the noble->prince transition. But, as I typically play financial leaders, I take full advantage of that trait. Use the coasts w/ lighthouse and river/cottages. Both give you 2 food , 3 coins right off the bat.

Get pottery quicky and settle any rivers which are close. The +1 gold due to the river, then +1 gold from the cottage give u that extra +1 due to financial leader, so u have a 2 food 3 gold plot right at the getgo. I mention the coasts because with a light house, its like building 4-8 farms for a city in a single building.

I try to always get 1-2 cities with the sole intention of making money. Capital is always one of them unless I have to settle in a crappy spot. I always go for the pyramids and get to representation with this asap since its monarchy with 3 free units per city basically for happiness. Helps you have over size 8 cities very early and lots of worked cottages. I typically miss an early religion or 3, but I've been using the oracle CoL/CS slignshot depending on how far along I am. Typically CoL though and there I have an instant religion, but more often than not, I won't pick a state religion because my neighbors got one and the +1 happyness doesn't counter that -1 -> -5 heretic religion modifier. You just build your temples, n what not until you can afford to name a state religion.

Current game I am in, I got SOOO lucky. I am Capac (Fin/Ind) and i have 3 rivers around me, 2 of my cities on one of the rivers have enough floodplains and grasslands that I need no farms at all to support full pop. Can u say 80% science with 7 cities pre-currency? For the first 2000 years I really didnt need a single road between my cities. One here and there to connect the rivers, but that was it. Spent all the time with the workers chopping and building up my cottages.

Take all i say with a grain of salt, I still suck, lol. I start well, but typically neglect something like my military, or making new settlers quickly enough and end up loosing out once I begin to hit mid game.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'm a noble->prince player in transition too. I wouldn't recommend the Pyramids anymore (used to love it on Noble level) if you have an aggressive neighbour. Better to build units. I do like getting The Oracle in my second city though (via forest chops + whipping). Pyramids are too expensive. Capturing them is super sweet though.

EDIT: Although playing Capac being Industrious makes Pyramids more worthwhile.

 

[Phite11]

isolated starts are a lot tougher than non-isolated ones.
try another map, like pangea, to have a better idea of the usual game.
After a while, you will manage isolated starts too. First by ignoring the 60% rule of thumb, then by lightbulbing your way to liberalism...

What I've noticed on price level is that in general if I don't maintain an 80%-90% research rate (even on normal starts), I'm dead around the time everyone is getting guilds/engineering and such. By that time I'm probably 5 techs behind and they are getting the next wave of military techs before I am which means I'm dead.

I guess the most successful games I've had are getting around 4 cities and then moving into military conquest asap. Hopefully prior to currency and CoL.

 

[Phite11]

Nah, its the normal version of civilization
Axemen are the best units in the game. Period.

I tried this method as well (research above 10%, full blown conquest mode). It worked pretty well until I got behind on techs, then it was like throwing spitballs at tanks when I'd attack a city after I got so far behind on techs.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

You need a good GP farm pumping out scientists so you can lightbulb techs to have good trades. The Great Library is fantastic for this.

 

[cabert]

What I've noticed on price level is that in general if I don't maintain an 80%-90% research rate (even on normal starts), I'm dead around the time everyone is getting guilds/engineering and such. By that time I'm probably 5 techs behind and they are getting the next wave of military techs before I am which means I'm dead.

I guess the most successful games I've had are getting around 4 cities and then moving into military conquest asap. Hopefully prior to currency and CoL.

2 things:
- work commerce tiles (cottages are good, gems are better but scarce)
- trade! you get ripped off? so? you're still doing better than if you don't trade

 

[dalessi12]

I tried this method as well (research above 10%, full blown conquest mode). It worked pretty well until I got behind on techs, then it was like throwing spitballs at tanks when I'd attack a city after I got so far behind on techs.

The most consistent thing that jumps out at me when I listen to your descriptions is that you are not teching very well. This could be for any number of reasons, but I think it is your biggest problem.

Make sure you actually work the cottages, they must grow to continue to be effective.

Raze most cities you capture in early wars. Keep capitals, holy cities and good wonders, or otherwise excellent sites only, raze all else, even if the spot would eventually look like a decent (not spectacular) city. You can found later. Even if AI resettles the spot, you have set the AI back, which will only make your death blow (later when you can afford it) that much easier.

Acquire land steadily. Actually you should do it in bursts of war then recovery, war then recovery, but you should repeat this several times during any one game. Above Noble level, you will need more land than the AI to keep up techwise (for the most part). You do not have to keep tech rate at 60% consistently, in fact it should vary with your war/recovery cycles. During war it is okay to have it get really low. If a war stalls, make peace, recover, finish AI civ in the next round.

Trade techs, and when you do, trade the techs to everyone on the same turn for whatever you can get.

Build the appropriate buildings for your cities (specialization). You can bet the AI will start building their libraries when they get Writing, so should you, don't wait too long.

Use slavery as often as possible. It will help.


Anyway, you have heard much of this already, but I still think you are not producing enough beakers.

 

[gettingfat]

For a beginner, my 2 cents are:

Overexpansion is not necessarily bad. The economy will pick up sooner or later. It's HOW you overexpand that's the issue. Do you just pick up some low growth desert or tundra or jungle cities with tons of resources, most of them not readily useable because of the poor city growth, and somewhat like 15 tiles away just to prevent the AIs from taking those spots? If yes, then your economy will crash quite easily. AIs taking those spots are not necessarily a bad thing, because you can take those cities later when they are more mature (thanks to the AIs). Expansion by conquest is usually better than by building settlers (you gain a city, you neighbour loses a city, so double-win!!)

Strategic resources (copper, horse) are more important than anything. Otherwise you have to wait till you have catapults and longbows to start some military actions, that put you in a very passive position.

City specialization is VERY important. Roughly put your cities in different categories (production-oriented, commerce-oriented, etc). Build a library in a no-commerce city gives you nothing and it takes you forever to get an axeman from a grassland-river city. Make sure you have at least one military city and one research city, to say the least.

And my last words, don't build too many great wonders - that's my addiction I can't 100% stop.

 

[Phite11]

The most consistent thing that jumps out at me when I listen to your descriptions is that you are not teching very well. This could be for any number of reasons, but I think it is your biggest problem.

Make sure you actually work the cottages, they must grow to continue to be effective.

Raze most cities you capture in early wars. Keep capitals, holy cities and good wonders, or otherwise excellent sites only, raze all else, even if the spot would eventually look like a decent (not spectacular) city. You can found later. Even if AI resettles the spot, you have set the AI back, which will only make your death blow (later when you can afford it) that much easier.

Acquire land steadily. Actually you should do it in bursts of war then recovery, war then recovery, but you should repeat this several times during any one game. Above Noble level, you will need more land than the AI to keep up techwise (for the most part). You do not have to keep tech rate at 60% consistently, in fact it should vary with your war/recovery cycles. During war it is okay to have it get really low. If a war stalls, make peace, recover, finish AI civ in the next round.

Trade techs, and when you do, trade the techs to everyone on the same turn for whatever you can get.

Build the appropriate buildings for your cities (specialization). You can bet the AI will start building their libraries when they get Writing, so should you, don't wait too long.

Use slavery as often as possible. It will help.


Anyway, you have heard much of this already, but I still think you are not producing enough beakers.

Thanks - this type of description is very helpful. Sounds like my prob is city management/beaker management. To be honest I thought I was effectively managing my cities (focusing on cottage growth), but perhaps I'm not micro-managing them enough. I'll try this and see what happens. I will also focus more on keeping only cities with good locations.

As for city placement - In general I try to settle on a spot with lots of resources (wheat, corn, cows, clams, fish, etc.) -or- a strategic city which I settle on to get bronze or iron. I have noticed people talking highly of river areas, which I've focused on more lately and seems to work well.

City specialization - I've tried doing more of this lately, but again perhaps not well enough. I'll read up on this more in the help section of this site.

Good tips, I'll try these and the other tips mentioned in the last couple posts.

 

[hotowen]

I'm not really a noob (well, i win only 40% of the time in Monarch, so still a bit of a noob) but a noob qn pls. If city maintenance is dependent on distance from capital, is it even required to build a courthouse in one's capital?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Not really, but you save half maintenance if you do. You might also be desperate to build a forbidden palace elsewhere but you need 6 courthouses (and 8 cities) for that anyway.

 

[Dan Quale]

Im still stuck on the axemen/immortal/quecha rush and its working, all my enemies are dead very early and the continent belongs to me and the barbarians, which are just fodder to my veterans of multiple wars.
Currently I play on emporer/immortal, and have got all my economy issues/overexpansion problems rectified. Build only 2 production cities to start then the rest commerce. My issue is that Ive become too effective of a warmongerer, the continent belongs to me approximately 2000 bc even with 4-5 opponents, they just all die, and i raze all leaving room for the barbarians to build me an empire.
Whats been killing me lately is that basically it turns into an isolated start, no tech trading and I get outteched by the other continent badly.
So I guess be aggressive but not too aggressive, try to leave yourself a tech buddy and your better off. I guess playing on pangaea is always an option, and after your cr 3/combat4/cover axemen, which they all can end up being, if you outsmart the ai enough, are done pillaging, maybe you can build stonehenge or something.

 

[Phite11]

Update: I've been playing Ghengis on Prince and having more success. I think my problem was 90% city management. I still haven't been able to win because I still fell behind in techs during wartime.

I think the problem now is not enough cities about mid-game time. Will remedy and post later.

 

[Phite11]

for anyone following this thread, I'm on the verge of winning my first game on Prince level...attached is most recent save. I'll have to start another game after this to make sure it wasn't just luck.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

LOL! OMG, I didn't think it was possible, but your normalized score will actually be lower than your raw score. I didn't look too long at the save, the game is a modern age nightmare. Nice to see you vassalized Catherine, I hate that uppity wench.