Monarch - I just can't win. (Background setup, Questions, long)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Aginor
Have to disagree on the notion that war is not as good as in previous iterations.


<snip>

The direct consequence is that war is a much more appealing option than before, and that capturing enemy cities after resources have been invested in their improvement, growth and terraforming by the AI (given its production bonuses against your production outputs) is vastly more efficient than it once was. Thus, I suggest that attack rather than defense is now clearly the way to go.

The thing is, in either Civ I or Civ II, you don't have to make civil improvements to your cities. In fact, building all but the most critical buildings is detrimental to your war effort because of maintenance costs. A city you capture is a city that can produce military units for you, and the smallest city can support at least two units.

Once you start a war, the momentum doesn't die down - it builds up in most instances.

[Blake]

That doesn't change the relative value of conquering vs building your own, it just changes the feasibility and difficulty of victories.

In Civ4 it's not (generally) feasible to win by early conquest, but early conquest of 1-2 civs gives you the territory needed to eventually win.

In many games it's infeasible to win without early conquest, your research falls behind. Insofar as research and power goes there is little substitute for having more cities, and conquest is the only reliable way to guarantee those cities.

I seem to recall in the earlier iterations of Civ (and SMAC) it was possible to win by building alone, I don't believe this is possible in Civ4 anymore (at Monarch+), with the exception of abnormal settings or starts.
Abnormal would be anything smaller than Standard map / OCC / no barbs (prehaps) / an insanely good start / odd custom maps.

In any case, if you want to win every game then early conquest will be a factor in most of them. There simply wasn't the imperative to conquer in Civ1/2 and SMAC.

[Ethelwind101]

VICTORY!!!

I finally was able to achieve my first victory on Monarch albeit a very close Time win with about 200 points lead.

In the aftermath it sure helped attacking or being attacked earlier in the game and thus expanding my empire.
After my experiences I would agree that war seems to take a much larger role than the prior Civs; where I was able to win on highest levels with building and rarely fighting resp. fights came at a much later stage with me being able to roll over the AI's and taking their cities because I could and not due to any must.

Comparing Civ4 vs. Civ3 I rather like the quick ramping up of difficulty - one of the few strategy games where you can't start on one of the higher levels and win. Additionally it takes much more thought and focus and :b to the developers.

Take care all and thanks again for all your input.

[couerdelion]

Well done

Now move up a level.

[Leifmk]

I seem to recall in the earlier iterations of Civ (and SMAC) it was possible to win by building alone, I don't believe this is possible in Civ4 anymore (at Monarch+), with the exception of abnormal settings or starts.

I disagree; I've achieved cultural victory without taking a single AI city. Without an insanely good starting position, too.

[Mr Justice]

i say stop expanding so early , i used do that and found i was alywas behind in tech and i was always penny pinching to the point where it reduced the effectiveness of my cities (i had to work the commerce tiles).

now i concentrate on early war and early cottages in my capital. by the time your capital is size 6 or so you could pump out a few settlers on the trot.

for that i recomend playing incas. try it out, you may not like the approach overall, but it does open your eyes to different ways of playing.