too easy on warlord.

[D4everman]

Tried a game on "Noble" setting, and man, I suck.

No one attacked me in the time I played, but I was way behind in science and just plain getting my civ off of the ground. Well, no attacked me but barbarians. They made my life living hell and effectively contributed to holding me back by forcing me to redirect all of my attention on defense. I'm not saying thats bad, I'm just saying that I need some work I think on the starting strategy.

I wanted to get a feel for the game so I tried another game on Warlord. I think warlord is pretty easy. Not only am I in first place score wise I have many of the wonders and with the exception of hinduism and judiasm I've founded all of the religions. I'll probably keep on with that game just so I can see all of the content, but its not very fun to be so far ahead in 1150 AD. (of course for all I know the AI could turn around and end up winning)

There are a few things I noticed and if I'm wrong in any of them, please let me know. I'm trying to get out of my CivIII way of thinking because it doesn't seem to work in this game.

1. REX (rapid expansion) is bad in CivIV. The first few games I started I tried that and quickly found that its a losing strategy. And unneeded. The AI doesn't go nuts on a land grab, so its better to expand when you're ready, not just throw settlers out willy nilly.
2. Getting a wonder is nice, but its not worth sacrificing infrastucture and defense. The barbarians don't joke in this game. They sent wave after wave at me for awhile.
3. The AI seems more reasonable. I like the idea that you can see why or why not they may be upset with you. By that token I think Montezuma is going to attack me. He won't open his borders "because he doesn't like me very much" and isn't too fond of my friendship with Mali.

tnhats just a few thoughts of mine. I'll have to play some more to get used to it and hopefully move up to a higher difficulty level. I'd like to know how the other civs react if you start a war. Thinking about getting motezuma before he gets me.

[alva]

Give it some time, you'll ba able to do noble soon.

you could try a harder map on warlord, or an easier map on noble to bridge the gap.

Though maps: Highlands, pangea
Easier maps: Continents (anything where contact comes later basically).

1. As I'told you in the other thread, you'll try...once and notice it doesn't work.
2.a Depends
2.b Yeah, they can be tough ( try raging barbs )
3.

[Urban Ranger]

Raging barbarians

[D4everman]

Haha, you mean they weren't raging? Seriously at one point my wife heard me yelling "AGAIN!?" at the screen because they just kept coming.

I'm trying to figure out whats the best number of cities starting off in order to be able to provide gold, defense and growth without getting into trouble.

[alva]

Get your second city online fairly quickly, the third one can wait awhile.

About 6 at 0 AD is a good number (does vary a little by difficulty, but it's not a bad thing to get used to having less cities).

Specialise your cities aswell (one for production, one for commerce...
don't try to build everyting in every city as that often is a waste).

Hmmn some other thing from civ3 you need to let go, is (close) city spacing, you can and may very well need all the tiles your city can get, so try to keep overlapping to a minimal. Remember, you've got less cities! )

[Amarsir]

Hehe, when rampaging I have seen them double up when coming for me. Imagine being harrassed by barbaian stacks in the early game.

Just for you I took a peek at my last game. Now this was on Monarch difficulty, Normal speed. In addition to my starting city in 4000 BC, I made number two at 2500 and three at 1880. And that's all the cities I founded. (I did make a 4th settler but the spot I wanted was taken just before I could get him there.)

Now that's pretty quick considering I was fighting off rampaging barbarians - I had a lot of forests to chop and I knew land was going quickly. But the point is I only needed to build 3 cities, everything else was captured. That does include two Barbarian cities before turning on my first AI victim.

Happy numbers for me are 3 and 6. With 3 early cities I'm comforted if need be I could turtle up and focus on a culture victory. With 6 period that's enough for the Oxford University and other national wonder requirements. After that it's less how many I have and more what I gain from each one.

Regrding wonders, it's certainly true you don't need them all, but selective choices can be quite useful. I keep this list on a post-it on my desk:

First to Discover
Priesthood -> Oracle -> Free Tech
Music -> Great Artist
Nationalism -> Taj Mahal -> Golden Age
Liberalism -> Tech
Economics -> Great Merchant
Physics -> Great Scientist
Fusion -> Great Engineer

It helps me remember, for example, that if I start a game and see marble nearby, then I make Priesthood a target ASAP (not immediately, but quickly). That way I know the Oracle will vault me ahead in tech and give me something way ahead of everyone else. Moreover I know to set all my tech targets early - in a 7 person game there's no bonus to being the 2nd to discover Liberalism over the 5th, especially if I can get military advancements instead during that time.

Also consider that (generally speaking) a water-heavy game will be heavier on food and cash, weak on hammers. So things favoring specialists are more useful. And so may be the Great Pyramid so you can spend cash to rush from an early age. By contrast the GP is hardly worth it in those strapped-for-cash games. You'll get the hang of adapting. Remember no plan ever survived contact with the enemy.

[Amarsir]

Alva makes a good point I forgot. When spacing cities I count 4 tiles out in one direction, then 3 to either side of that line, and that's where I look to put it. (Lets the fat crosses nest together nicely.) Of course moving a little from there to optimize resources is better, but avoid going too close - limits growth potential. Or too far apart - encourages border disputes without the muscle to defend yourself.

[tijuanacowboy]

I felt the same way. Warlord is so easy and the first games I played on Noble I got trounced.

So for a couple of games I reduced the number of AIs. That helped a lot, more room to expand. Then I had the regular number of AIs but I turned off tech trading, which made it a lot more fun for me, the AI wouldn't trade all their techs away to each other for so cheap.

If you don't want to play like that, the key is military or diplomacy. You either have to get an edge with the military and cripple/wipe out the good AIs or get in on the tech trading to keep up with the science.

[Badtz Maru]

Re: too easy on warlord.

Originally posted by D4everman
Tried a game on "Noble" setting, and man, I suck.

No one attacked me in the time I played, but I was way behind in science and just plain getting my civ off of the ground. Well, no attacked me but barbarians. They made my life living hell and effectively contributed to holding me back by forcing me to redirect all of my attention on defense. I'm not saying thats bad, I'm just saying that I need some work I think on the starting strategy.

It's a big jump from Warlord to Noble I agree (I could dominate Warlord from the day I bought Civ4 but it took me a couple of weeks before I got my first Noble win), but if you read the boards and keep at it, you'll soon find Noble pretty easy. The only reason I haven't bumped my difficulty level up yet is I don't like the AI to have production advantages over me (even if it's probably necessary to challenge me), and have been challenging myself by doing random civs, strange maps, and working on other gameplay strategies (I'm normally a builder so I've been working on my conquest skills).

I'm guessing you don't emphasize commerce and research enough. On Warlord you get really big research bonuses over the AI so you don't need to concentrate on that aspect as much and you can be more creative in your tech paths. On Noble the AI is very efficient at getting the most out of their start, and you aren't as likely to have the best starting site of all the civs as you are on the easier levels. If barbarians are bothering you on Noble, you either aren't building enough military units early in the game, or playing a map with a lot of empty land (5 civs on a standard map or one of the all-land maps like Great Plains or Highlands). You probably have a very builder-oriented early build order.

Your first build should be a military unit in most cases, with a few exceptions.

1. If you start on a coast and have Fishing, you probably want to build a work boat first, even if there's not a water special. If there's a water special, you definitely want to build a boat first, because the commerce will give you an edge in the tech race, but even if there's none immediately visible, you can use it to scout and your second city should be on the coast as well (for easy trade) and you might find a good special to park that boat on until you can get a settler over there.

2. If there is a special you can exploit with your starting techs or one you're likely to get in the next 15 turns or so, you might want to build a worker first, but if your city is growing fast (you have access to a 3 food tile) you might want to work on a warrior until you hit size 2 and then start the worker.

3. If you can get Bronze Working before a worker is finished and want to do a chopping start, build a Worker first and then chop a warrior or two before anything else.

4. If you start with Hunting on a non-island map and neither 1 nor 2 apply, build a scout as your first unit. I have found running 2 scouts REALLY pays off, it's not uncommon for me to build up 300 gold or so from huts, or snag a couple of free techs. An exception to this rule would be if you are playing a custom game with a lot more than the default number of civs for your map size, as most of the huts will be snagged before the second scout can get to them.

5. If you have a REALLY crummy starting location (highly unlikely) and see a better one nearby, a settler start might be preferable, but this is an extremely risky strategy, and the game usually gives you a workable start - if it's not good, that means you probably are planning on using an inflexible strategy that relies on having ready access to a particular terrain or resource.

[Willem]

Re: too easy on warlord.

Originally posted by D4everman

2. Getting a wonder is nice, but its not worth sacrificing infrastucture and defense.

There's lots of Wonders in the game so you have to choose which one will help you the most at the time. Otherwise you end up doing nothing but building them.

The barbarians don't joke in this game. They sent wave after wave at me for awhile.

The best way to deal with the barbs is to place Archers on Hills just outside your borders along the path that they follow. 90% of the time the barbs will go after them, but they don't stand a chance and end up killing themselves. If there are no Hills in the area where they are coming from, stick in an Axeman. The key is to intercept them before they reach your territory.

By that token I think Montezuma is going to attack me. He won't open his borders "because he doesn't like me very much" and isn't too fond of my friendship with Mali.

Rule of thumb: Montezuma is always going to attack you. Even if you're on good terms with him, he can turn around and go for your throat.

[EvilBob22]

Re: too easy on warlord.

Originally posted by D4everman
The barbarians don't joke in this game. They sent wave after wave at me for awhile.

Unless there are raging barbarians, that usually means there is a barbian city where they are coming from.

[Badtz Maru]

Another strategy I've developed that's made Noble a lot easier is not building every improvement as soon as I can get it. Let's say the only buildings I can build in my city are a temple, a lighthouse, a granary, and a barracks. I have a decent start site, with floodplains, elephants, stone, and a sea resource with a fishing boat. I've already got a worker up and a settler heading towards the second city site, and three warriors, one at the second city site, one scouting, and one in my home city. What should I build next? The way I used to play, I'd definitely build one of those four improvements next - I got my second city on it's way, I've probably got enough military to discourage early barbarian raids, I can put off building my military and work on filling out my cities, right? All four of those improvements have benefits.

Now, I'd build several more units first, probably a couple more military and another worker. Why?

There's no immediate benefit to building a temple - you wouldn't be at the happiness limit yet on Noble, and I don't need the 1 culture in my capital at this early stage. The elephants will provide a point of happiness should I get past size 6. Never build a happiness improvement unless your city is unhappy or it's going to be in a few turns, and in that case you can also just halt growth if there's something you'd rather build.

What about the lighthouse? The lighthouse will increase the amount of food I'm getting from my sea resource, but to get the full benefit I'd have to work multiple sea squares, and with those elephants, stone, and floodplains I'm probably not going to be working the sea outside of my resource square much at this phase. The floodplains (which will be worked constantly to build up cottages) and the sea resource will provide more than enough food to grow my city quickly. The one extra food per turn is not worth the turns it would take to build it at this stage. Save it for later when more sea tiles start getting worked and you can build it in 4 turns or so. Only exception I'd see is if you also have lakes to work and are financial.

Granary? I'll be building one later, when city growth starts to slow and when health becomes an issue. I might build one earlier if I had limited food resources, but this start has plenty to grow the city to it's happiness limits quick.

Barracks? At this stage I'd only build one if I was Aggressive or if I intended to take some cities soon, and even then I might wait if I had good offensive units. In the time it would take to build a barracks, you could build 2 warriors and be 5 shields from the third. At this stage of the game having six warriors would be more useful than having three and some one promotion units on the way.

Building the military units is more immediately useful in these situations. You could take a barbarian city with them, you can break up fog of war to reduce barbarian attacks, you can scout, and AIs show you more respect in diplomacy because you aren't the weakest civ in the game.

Eventually you'll reach a point where you don't need more military units and there's nothing immediately useful to build in some of your cities. At that point, either reduce production and specialize the city for commerce/research/great people, or use the production for extra cash/research/culture as needed. Don't build anything without a tangible benefit, even if there's nothing else to build. If you're number 1 in military and have a size 10 production town with 15 happiness which is not bordering anyone or part of your cultural victory 'Big 3', do not build Theaters or Temples even if that's all that's left, UNLESS you are going for cathedrals or the Globe Theater and there's not enough other cities to fill the temple/theater requirements.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru

There's no immediate benefit to building a temple -

That depends on whether you've founded a religion. If so, it's certainly a good idea to get a Temple up in your Holy City so you can get a Great Prophet and build the Shrine. The earlier you can get that extra gold flowing, the better off you're going to be.

At this stage of the game having six warriors would be more useful than having three and some one promotion units on the way.

It's pointless building that many Warriors. They really aren't very good units so you'd be better off going for Archers or even Axeman. If you're trying to defend your empire from barbs with just Warriors, you're asking for trouble. They just aren't strong enough to stand up to them.

[Badtz Maru]

Warriors are all you need on Noble until barbarians start coming at you with axemen, and even then enough warriors can take out an axeman. I haven't tested it but I'm pretty sure three warriors fortified in a city would survive a single barbarian axe attacking.

It's true you might want a temple in that situation if you founded an early religion, but those early turns are so valuable I find it hard justifying priest specialists before my city starts getting really big. I'd rather do it in the second city if it's got enough food, it's more likely to have later religions founded in it, and my capital usually is my primary research city and I don't want to ruin my chances of getting a great scientist.

I used to always go for lots of religions and shrines, but you have to have the right conditions and build plenty of missionaries to make them worthwhile. Go for a shrine if you know your religion is going to be popular, otherwise wait and see how things develop.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Warriors are all you need on Noble until barbarians start coming at you with axemen, and even then enough warriors can take out an axeman. I haven't tested it but I'm pretty sure three warriors fortified in a city would survive a single barbarian axe attacking.

You'll be losing alot of Warriors doing it that way, and so wasting production. A single Archer in a city will hold off an Axeman, and he'll still survive the attack. Occasionally they get lucky though so there should be a backup. Three Warriors would probably hold the city but you'll lose at least one of them, possibly two. Which means you just wasted all the Hammers it took to build them.

I'd rather do it in the second city if it's got enough food, it's more likely to have later religions founded in it, and my capital usually is my primary research city and I don't want to ruin my chances of getting a great scientist.

Like I said, you build the Temple in your Holy City, whichever that one is.

Go for a shrine if you know your religion is going to be popular, otherwise wait and see how things develop.

That's foolish advice. You still get the +1 gold per city if the religion is established in your own empire. That extra gold per turn can make a big difference in the early game.