 |
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
I just thought of a beginning strategy I'd like to try. It's about founding a religion and getting a shrine early, and still not falling far behind in settling and production. I think this could work on Emperor.
It does depend on getting gold or gems at your starting location, so it's a bit lame. And it's preferable to start with a civ that either has Mysticism or Mining (or both).
So, here it goes:
1. Build a worker and research Mining (or Mysticism if you started with Mining).
2. Next research Bronze Working, and have your worker mine the gold/gems. Build another Worker.
3. When the mine is ready, have your city work the gold/gems tile. This will speed up the Bronze Working research.
4. Next it's Polytheism or Masonry (you're going for Judaism). Set your warrior/scout out to find copper, and chop down trees with your worker.
5. Now you have another worker. Build Stonehenge, and have the workers chop it up. Mind that you're still working the gold/gems and your city is not growing (unless maybe you built it on rice or something, which might be a good idea for this strategy).
Ideally you have some forest left to chop a settler when you've finished the Stonehenge. From this on out it's the usual deal.
I think this is a way in which I think you can be the first to Monotheism, get a shrine and not getting too far behind (because you're chopping trees). It does delay the second city a bit though, but it might be well worth it. Perhaps it'd be better, especially if you've already found copper, to chop a settler first and then build Stonehenge, as you might not be able to chop Stonehenge up completely. But that could result in missing out on Stonehenge, thus having to wait longer for the shrine.
What do you guys think?
Last edited by Nikomakkos on 18-07-2008 at 07:19
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
The Netherlands
|
Apr 2008
time: 13:12
| |
|
|
If you start with building 2 workers, your city won't grow and then it will take ages to build stonehenge (even with the help of chopping worker). Most likely another civ will beat you to it.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
Yeah for me stonehege isn't a priority also.
..maybe if IND, (if I wait to hook up the stone, someone else has usually finished it already, and if I have stone, I'm looking for pyramids)
Or maybe if I have a monument UU, I'll consider it.
I used to be in the one worker camp but have been converted to the extra workers do not really slow down growth group.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
Yeah in MP games, I'd always get off to a fast start but then the guys with the (the more workers the better) mentality would always catch up and pass me. I'm a convert having seen the results game after game.
And I believe the most common newb error is not enough workers. Obviously there is a limit to this, but you have to really work at it.
IN a sp game You'll see the ai drop a city and 15 workers show up and presto, there's a productive city in almost no time. While the AI has a lot of problems with other complex issues, it doesn't on this one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
I like the Stonehenge for convenience, especially if I found a religion. Because then the Great Prophet will arrive and I don't have to think about it. But I'm not sure how many trees you'd have to chop to get it. Like I said, maybe it'd be wiser to chop a settler first and then maybe chop the Stonehenge partly, stop working the gold and let the city grow and finish Stonehenge on its own. But you guys are right, Stonehenge is not necessary, just convenient.
Two workers is a must. When you have two of them chopping up the settler, your settler arrives about the same time he would have if you'd only built one worker. Anyway, the difference is very small. And now you can have one of your workers follow that settler and chop another worker and a monument in your new city right away, while the other improves your capital (or chops another settler if there are trees left). This results in a very fast growth of productivity.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
|
Jan 1970
time: 07:12
| |
|
|
Hmmm, I'm still in the 1 worker camp. Mebbe I'll try for 2 next time.
I also agree that stonehenge is fairly useless at higher levels, and not really worth going after. Unless your PHIL and have a strat based on Great Prophets, or have stone, it's not worth it.
As for staying with one city,  . I build 2 settlers out of my capital and then it settles down to build Wonders almost exclusively (but then I play PHIL civs mostly). The 2nd city goes straight for GW and the 3rd churns out archers, workers, and settlers. Once the 2nd city is done with the GW (builds it or loses it) it starts building archers, workers, and settlers. Infrastructure is built as needed, as is military.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
or the characteristic that gives you +1 happy for monuments.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
|
Jan 1970
time: 07:12
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Three civs have some version of the monument as the national UB. For them, Stonehenge is a game-changing accomplishment. |
Athough I like to play the Native Americans, I still usually skip Stonehenge. While it would be nice to have it for the GP points, I find that the Temple of Artemis is much better, if more expansive. The only cities that really need totem poles are my military cities, and cities under threat. I use dog soldiers to fend off barbarians, offensively and defensively, and research archery late. So the UB bonus doesn't really affect me until later.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I think most people tend to play the same basic strategy no matter what civ they're playing.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by wodan11
I think most people tend to play the same basic strategy no matter what civ they're playing. |
You're probably right. I know however one guy who might not. He always beats anyone at any sort of strategy game, and looking at him play is like trying to read Chinese. He's the sort of guy that would probably have a completely different strategy for each game and you wouldn't know what the heck he was doing. You gotta admire the brilliance of some people, the beauty of it.
Is there a good thread anywhere on unique strategies that are powerful? I remember I read somewhere once that in order to beat the higher difficulties, you have to play to your leaders traits. But that's not my experience at all. For me the traits are all of them just a handy benefit, each one. I guess I like org, fin and maybe phil best.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
Oh, and I recently started playing BtS, and Charismatic seems to be an extremely powerful trait. I haven't tried it yet for some reason though.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
Must play the traits.
Simple differences.
FIN. CE
ORG. SE
PHIL. SE
IND. Wonder hog SE
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
Why SE with ORG? Why oh why? Oh, is it because you can usually only have 2 scientists per city, so it's better to have many cities (which ORG is strong for)? Plus, when you have many cities you won't be able to have the science slider high up, so SE is better for supporting many cities. And you get all those scientists! Wow, hey SE with ORG seems to work really well! I never thought of that. Actually I only recently learned about the SE.
But why SE with IND? Hmmm...
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
With lots of wonders, lots of GP points, which dove tails well with a SE strat. Lots of golden ages.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Maryland Heights, MO
|
Sep 2002
time: 06:12
| |
|
|
The only reason you have a decent shot at the Monothesism religion with that tech plan in the single player game is the commerce from gems or gold you stated at the top. Remove those high commerce tiles and you'll get beat just about every time to the AI for Monotheism.
Stonehidge though is actually pretty easy to get first against the AI with that tech plan since there seems to be a great abdunance of forest in starting locations.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
´synergetic´ would be my shot at spelling it. Tho i fail to see the synergy here. Except stonehenge + religion. That of course is synergetic. It´s my buddies standard plan. I love it, when i have stone at my cap and i can ruin it for him - hehehe....
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
of Spam
|
Dec 2003
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
Synergistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jul 2008
time: 12:12
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
Just out of interest and because on deity, build too many units before you access iron is too costly, I thought I would try building a wonder, particularly as my capital was built on stone (non industrious civ) so I learnt masonry for a change and set my capital to building the pyramids. It worked, so even on the highest levels if you want wonders can be built. Due to strength of nearby civs and iron only available near a well defended AI city, game never progressed far, but I found it interesting that I could beat the AI to something as big as the pyramids on the hardest level. I did have cows and sheep to pasture first, quite a few hills and plenty of forest to help though. |
Sounds like a beautiful land. What a shame you didn't have iron. That's a total game buster, if you didn't have copper either. Sometimes, when everything is so perfect except for something like this, I'm tempted to go to the worldbuilder and add the missing thing, like the iron. Because it just means you have to start over again, and again, until you have either metal.
But you actually managed to build the pyramids on deity? Wow, that's something.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Blau, you're mistaken to believe that a two worker strategy means slower growth. It means faster growth, as you get that second and third settler out MUCH faster.
