Bandobras Took
Emperor
Anybody else notice him contradicting himself here?
Why growing to 5 is bad OR the value or a warrior
- Thread starter vicawoo
- Start date
Anybody else notice him contradicting himself here?
Stolen Rutters
Deity
Automating workers doesn't do you much good in Noble, either. I was struggling when I first went to Noble (having read the forums, I manually assigned workers) and decided to automate workers after getting obliterated. Well, that didn't help at all. It became worse. So I only improved my Noble game thanks to the forums.
Honestly, Prince isn't a cakewalk for those of us who aren't as good! The AI still gets bonuses!
Hmm, I'm pretty sure you can put together what you know and work your way up to an Emperor victory before too long. The difference is that to win at emperor, you have to constantly try and make the move that will bring you closer to a victory condition, and focus on your available victory conditions throughout the game. At that level I can't go, "I think I can afford to go after Theocracy before Currency" if I am expanding towards a domination win and I need the extra trade routes up now to keep growing. It's a matter of focus.
And don't take that example as a rule. Going after an Apostolic win? Spread your chosen religion as strategically as possible. If multiple religions fall in your lap, a culture win gets easy to pull off if you can keep your empire intact for the duration (sometimes a big IF.
)Emperor can make my head hurt if I play when I'm tired, actually, but now I am confident I can win if I "play to win". It just takes more work to keep myself from drifting or losing focus on actually winning. Unfortunately, I like detouring in a game and that is what loses most of my games at Emperor.
edit -
detouring examples:
1. I don't need a monestary in this city, but I build it anyway.
2. I don't need a forge in a low production city but I do need happy? I should have built a Theater first.
3. This production city finished it's build and I have just enough units to go to war? Sometimes I'll build a building or wonder I won't need for another 50 turns, and when I lose too many units in the war, I find I wasn't building any replacements for that combat zone.
I think it's impossible to put a "tag" on what's more effecient when you look at the grand scheme of things. Everything will be dependent on difficulty level, strategy, and goals.
If you play Prince and below where the AI is slow to land grab and a massive REX was affordable and you wanted to spit out 6 settlers as fast as possible then it would make perfect since to grow your city to a size that would allow it.
I personally play nothing but emperor/immortal and my early game revolves around timelines for settlers/wonders/maintenance/and research and usually follows this path:
worker>war>war>settler(size3)>settler>worker>SH (1800-1840)>war>war>OR(1200-1400)
At my current level even if I were to directly que a settler from the get go the AI would still beat me out with their first settler......so, that makes my goal to produce 2 settlers as fast as possible while leaving enough forest to chop 2x for SH and still have some left for Health. If I started settlr,settlr,work at size 2 then I would have my 2nd settler out 1 turn later on average, have 1 less warrior, and have my 2nd worker out later as well. Basically I would lose 7 turns on average (1 settler,2 worker,and 4 from growth).
So I think difficulty level is the #1 factor that will lead to case by case effeciency.
If you play Prince and below where the AI is slow to land grab and a massive REX was affordable and you wanted to spit out 6 settlers as fast as possible then it would make perfect since to grow your city to a size that would allow it.
I personally play nothing but emperor/immortal and my early game revolves around timelines for settlers/wonders/maintenance/and research and usually follows this path:
worker>war>war>settler(size3)>settler>worker>SH (1800-1840)>war>war>OR(1200-1400)
At my current level even if I were to directly que a settler from the get go the AI would still beat me out with their first settler......so, that makes my goal to produce 2 settlers as fast as possible while leaving enough forest to chop 2x for SH and still have some left for Health. If I started settlr,settlr,work at size 2 then I would have my 2nd settler out 1 turn later on average, have 1 less warrior, and have my 2nd worker out later as well. Basically I would lose 7 turns on average (1 settler,2 worker,and 4 from growth).
So I think difficulty level is the #1 factor that will lead to case by case effeciency.
vicawoo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 3,226
I think optimization matters more on prince, because the conditions are more ideal and you have more land to REX. It makes less of a difference on winning, though.
Your game play doesn't have to change at lower levels, you can get a 50% larger empire if you play efficiently.
Your game play doesn't have to change at lower levels, you can get a 50% larger empire if you play efficiently.
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
I've been known to drop back to Prince as a confidence builder after severely bad luck on Emp.
blitzkrieg1980
Octobrist
Why not just drop down to Monarch?
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
Sometimes I just want a guaranteed win.
Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
Yeah, I get all Les Grossman when I start to really kick *ss in the late game with my CRIII mech infantries, CRIII modern armors, CRIII mobile arts, and those aggro civs I was so afraid of early on I'm like "literally take a step back and F*** your own face!!! And you too, Shaka!!!"
