too easy on warlord.

[Dis]

I have no problem utterly dominating the score in Noble. But my last few marathon games I haven't been able to get the spaceship off in time. . Even though I'm way ahead of the AI in tech.

[bongo]

Started my first game on noble, things were going OKish in the beginning but I soon learned how clueless I really am. Not that the game was unwinnable, it was just getting too hard to be enjoyable...

So I stepped down to warlord, learned some more tricks and pulled off an easy domination victory.

Back to noble again (new game), from a decent start I really zoomed ahead of the rest. For a while...cause suddenly (without noticing) I start playing bad again and find myself once again in a situation I am not happy with.

Lesson learned: Do not engage your civ-autopilot *until* you master the game.

Contemplating a new noble start....

[unamablebuiler]

i have had cities with 5 warriors in them be lost to single axemen and the axeman was barely hurt its either get axes youreslf or get archers otherwise you are stuck and dead.

IMO warriors should only be build if there is nothing better than them and that ussually done by 2000 BC. even on noble this is important

next is aim to obtain a sizeable chunk of land quickly enough 4-8 cities depending on leader traits and map size and difficulty.

the next point i have is develop vertically , once i have my immediate suroundings secured i start building workers and spammming cottages on graslands/floodplains. This is nessecary to grow your economy so you can expand through settlers or force.

i build temples and theatres everywhere so that i have some sort of buffer when i am at war before mt rushmore this is essential as you can endup with +10 or more unhappiness in a drawn out conflict meaning your cities will at first slow down and then starve if you do nothing while it is peaceful i build a buffer here as much as i can as i will have problems here during war regarding happiness / unit production if i don't.

if you have excess population i use them to rush a temple or theatre or coliseum as it shrinks the pop increases the happy cap and adds unhappy people for a while.

[fed1943]

In Maru exemple,I will build a worker(to 2nd city)or a barracks.My decision would depend on the food/hammers of capital v. food/hammer of 2nd city.
Best regards,

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Willem


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.



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



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.

Not that big a difference, depending on your civics. At this very early stage of the game, you're looking at 1-2 gold per turn unless you're on a crowded map and have already spread your religion before you got your second city up. This is at the cost of building a structure that serves no other useful function, and then sacrificing production/commerce/food for many turns by making Priest specialists. What's that gold going to do for you? Currency is a long ways off, so you can't trade the money. You can't use it for rushing unless you have Pyramids. It's gold, not commerce, so it's not contributing to your research at all. It's only real use is to let you run expensive civics after getting your second city up without going into negative, but if you built warriors/scouts/other military units instead, you could have been getting lots of money from huts as well as getting a better idea of the lay of the land.

The most important resource in the game is turns, and turns are FAR more valuable earlier in the game than later because they can be used to build an early advantage which will increase geometrically as the game advances. Even if I've founded a religion, I'm not going to devote turns to getting a prophet until I'm much more established - now, if I get the prophet as a result of something else I was going to build early anyway, that has other uses, then that's great. But I don't think it's wise to pull workers from the fields to get a shrine up just as the second city is built.

As to wasting warriors vs. barbarian axemen - yeah, they can't stand up very well against axemen. How often are you attacked by axemen that early in the game? You should be able to build archers or other better units by then for defense. If barbarian axemen are a big problem for you, you're not building enough defenses quickly enough. Barbarians should be the least of your worries by the time the barbarians start spawning axemen. The warriors have so many other uses besides city defense - scouting, and especially breaking up the fog of war. If you built enough extra warriors that you can scatter them around outside your cities borders, you can greatly reduce the chances that barbarians are going to spawn near your city, which is invaluable.

By the time you're facing axemen barbarians, you should be able to come up with the funds to promote one of those warriors should one start heading towards your city. Having 5-6 warriors scattered about in the early game means you will always have an axeman where you need one as long as you have the promotion money. When your civilization gets bigger, you can use these warriors for happiness in 'safe' cities and use your better, newer units for the border cities. Warriors also promote quickly if you can keep them alive, meaning you can make a good invasion army later when you have the funds to make them into axemen/swordsmen/macemen/whatevermen.

I'm not saying that Warriors and other military units are always the most important thing to build early in the game, just that quite frequently they are a much better choice to spend your turns on than anything else available. They have immediate and lasting benefits, while many improvements are not needed early in the game. These projects should wait until they are closer to being needed and when the turn values decrease.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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.

That's way too far apart. Here's my loose scheme:


OxxxOxxxO
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxOxxxOxx


Of course, as always, the presence of special resources takes precedence over a neat arrangement.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Not that big a difference, depending on your civics.

Having a shrine not only gives you extra income - and the game is fundamentally all about $$$ - but it gives you an extra push spreading the religion as well. Kill two birds with one stone.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
This is at the cost of building a structure that serves no other useful function, and then sacrificing production/commerce/food for many turns by making Priest specialists.

It depends. Sometimes you don't want your cities to grow so fast. Taking pops out to make specialists have their advantages.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
What's that gold going to do for you?

The gold goes into your coffer, which in turn pays upkeep fees. Having $$$ means you can keep your research rate up while still expanding. Why do you think getting gold from native huts is a very good thing at high levels?

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
The most important resource in the game is turns, and turns are FAR more valuable earlier in the game than later because they can be used to build an early advantage which will increase geometrically as the game advances.

it's all inter-related.

Why do you want to build so many military units anyway? Unless you are gearing up for an ultra early rush with your UU it's silly. Units require upkeep as well.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
As to wasting warriors vs. barbarian axemen - yeah, they can't stand up very well against axemen. How often are you attacked by axemen that early in the game?

If you start by building archers, you are going to have units much more durable than warriors. Doing so will save you turns because you don't need to replenish your defenders (as often). Archers are extremely tough defenders on forested hills.

It also looks like you have never played with "raging barbarians" on. It really gives the game an extra dimension. Warriors just can't cut it when barbarians come at you incessantly, turn after turn.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
The warriors have so many other uses besides city defense - scouting, and especially breaking up the fog of war.

That's what scouts are for - cheap, mobile, and won't get you bad results popping huts.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
If you built enough extra warriors that you can scatter them around outside your cities borders, you can greatly reduce the chances that barbarians are going to spawn near your city, which is invaluable.

Wouldn't that cost you extra turns that you could use to build other things, such as a temple?

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
By the time you're facing axemen barbarians, you should be able to come up with the funds to promote one of those warriors should one start heading towards your city.

So you are advocating spending extra resources when you don't have to. Seems like bad planning to me.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
When your civilization gets bigger, you can use these warriors for happiness in 'safe' cities and use your better, newer units for the border cities.

You're much better off developing your happiness resources or make an attempt at the Pyramids for Representation.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Warriors also promote quickly if you can keep them alive, meaning you can make a good invasion army later when you have the funds to make them into axemen/swordsmen/macemen/whatevermen.

There is no difference in promoting warriors and other units. They may get a bit more experience in some marginal cases, though I rather have a living axeman instead of a dead warrior. A unit that lives to see another turn is a unit that will get more experience in the long run.

Besides it is not difficult to train units with some experience. Barracks and either theocracy or Vassalage will do fine.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I'm not saying that Warriors and other military units are always the most important thing to build early in the game, just that quite frequently they are a much better choice to spend your turns on than anything else available.

As I said before, unless you somehow have a chance at crushing an opponent really early in the game, having a large army is counter productive. It takes up $$$ that you can spend elsewhere, e.g. research.

[Crankiest]

I can offer sympathy for anyone who finds the higher levels make the game at least seem unwinnable.

I had some early luck and then got whipped hard.
Barbarians were a big problem in several games.

I really wanted to comment about extra warriors.

Better off with a few too many than not enough.
They can be useful in many ways.
If nothing else they can be a backup city garrison.
I hate getting caught running only a single garrison troop in a city. The AI declares war unexpectedly, sends in a raiding horse archer, defeats the lone defender and razes that city. That is painful. It has happened too me more than once, so at the very least, one extra warrior would be a good thing I think. that way it woould take two horse archers to raze the city.

I know that I need to have a more active military strategy but I'm far too Canadian.

Barbarians have helped me learn about conquest. Build miltary and capture barbarian cities. You might not need as many settlers that way.
The barbarian raiders are a wakeup call to start planning for defense.

A beautiful set of cities, far superior to all the AI cities is just asking for trouble unless you have some troops to guard them.

Security is not less important than prosperity.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
By the time you're facing axemen barbarians, you should be able to come up with the funds to promote one of those warriors should one start heading towards your city.

Funds which your Shrine has helped you provide. It's also very good for expanding your cultural boundaries and defense, and as mentioned will help your religion spread faster. I see no logical reason why you wouldn't want to build it as ASAP.

[bongo]

What happens when barbs capture one of your cities? Raze or keep? Haven't happened to me yet but I came very close once. Ran out of defenders in a city and sacrified a worker to divert a barb warriors attention long enough to bring backup.

[alva]

Not sure to be honest. Small cities get razed but I'm not sure what happens with bigger ones.

[Dry]

I play noble and don't build warriors anymore.
I see them as a waste of time/resource.
During the wild beasts period, I don't need city defenders and when barbarians show up, archers are available and way better defenders than warriors.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bongo
What happens when barbs capture one of your cities? Raze or keep?

It depends on their mood at the time. Sometimes they keep it, sometimes they raze.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Having a shrine not only gives you extra income - and the game is fundamentally all about $$$ - but it gives you an extra push spreading the religion as well. Kill two birds with one stone.

It's more than 'one stone', though. It's (1) building a temple, (2) making weak specialists out of population that could be growing your city or making you commerce, and (3) keeping those specialists around long enough to generate the proper GP.

Your experience may vary, but I've found that concentrating on getting the Shrine very early in the game hurts my growth. If I found an early religion, I may build Stonehenge (if I'm not Creative) and take the prophet that comes from that eventually, but making a significant portion of my population specialists at that point does not seem wise.

It depends. Sometimes you don't want your cities to grow so fast. Taking pops out to make specialists have their advantages.

'Sometimes' being later in the game. In the scenario I described you do not want to slow your growth. Slave rushing or careful reassignment of population to lower food tiles is better at the stage where you only have 1-2 cities.

The gold goes into your coffer, which in turn pays upkeep fees. Having $$$ means you can keep your research rate up while still expanding. Why do you think getting gold from native huts is a very good thing at high levels?

I usually have enough in my coffers by the time my income goes negative at 100% that I can keep it there for 40-50 turns, easily. 20-30 turns later, when I have 3 or 4 cities and maintenance starts going up, then is a good time to take away growth/production/commerce to get some gold income, but by then I probably have even more gold from pillaging.

Why do you want to build so many military units anyway? Unless you are gearing up for an ultra early rush with your UU it's silly. Units require upkeep as well.

Why do you want to build so few? I have a feeling you do a lot of gambling with your cities and reloading when the barbarians come upon your poorly defended cities. Those warriors can be used for a number of things that I've already listed. Until you start hitting happiness caps a temple in your home city is only good for two things - 1 point of culture per turn and the option to hurt your growth to generate a prophet.

If you start by building archers, you are going to have units much more durable than warriors. Doing so will save you turns because you don't need to replenish your defenders (as often). Archers are extremely tough defenders on forested hills.

Archers also require a dead-end tech, are more expensive, and have limited upgrade options until you get into the medieval period. I'm not saying you should prioritize warriors over other, superior military units, I'm saying you should attach a higher importance to building military units than buildings that won't do anything for you until later in the game (when they can be built in a fraction of the time). Substitute 'Archer' for 'Warrior' in my original reply if you have the tech for them and don't mind the additional expense.

It also looks like you have never played with "raging barbarians" on. It really gives the game an extra dimension. Warriors just can't cut it when barbarians come at you incessantly, turn after turn.

I play with default options and haven't tried raging barbarians. I like barbarians the way they are - they penalize you early in the game for concentrating too much on building and too little on defense, but are only an annoyance to a strong civ.

That's what scouts are for - cheap, mobile, and won't get you bad results popping huts.

Again, I'm not saying warriors are superior, I was using them as an example of an early military unit that anyone would have access to. I usually build at least one extra scout if I start with Hunting, but I generally prefer units that have some defensive value, can be upgraded promptly to more useful units, and who count on your Power graph so the other civs don't think you're a pushover.

Wouldn't that cost you extra turns that you could use to build other things, such as a temple?

Why are you so fixated on temples? OK, you've shown one reason why one might want to build one at that early stage of the game, if you founded one of the early religions and want to get a shrine up pronto. Having founded a religion was not part of the scenario I described, but even if I had, I've explained my reasons why a shrine can wait.

So you are advocating spending extra resources when you don't have to. Seems like bad planning to me.

No, because those Warriors were useful and served a purpose until they needed to be promoted. If things go well, they might not get promoted for a long, long time. Bad planning is wasting early game turns on a building that does nothing for your civilization while your defense is low.

You're much better off developing your happiness resources or make an attempt at the Pyramids for Representation.

Pyramid is too risky for me to go for most of the time even on Noble, unless I'm industrious, have stone, or have good production, a second production city, and I got Masonry quickly.

As to developing happiness resources, how the heck does building warriors instead of temples, granaries, and barracks make it harder to develop your happiness resources? Having the warriors makes it EASIER, because you can defend your happiness resources from pillaging barbarians and make sure your workers can get around safely.

There is no difference in promoting warriors and other units. They may get a bit more experience in some marginal cases, though I rather have a living axeman instead of a dead warrior. A unit that lives to see another turn is a unit that will get more experience in the long run.

At the stage where the barbarians are attacking you with warriors, defending warriors will gain XP a lot faster than archers because the relative strengths are closer.

Besides it is not difficult to train units with some experience. Barracks and either theocracy or Vassalage will do fine.

OK, I think you need to re-read the scenario I am discussing here...Theocracy and Vassalage are a LONG ways off when you are just beginning your second city. I am NOT saying 'Build warriors instead of buildings FOR THE ENTIRE GAME'. I'm saying 'Build warriors instead of buildings when that's all you can build and the buildings have zero benefit at the time'.

As I said before, unless you somehow have a chance at crushing an opponent really early in the game, having a large army is counter productive. It takes up $$$ that you can spend elsewhere, e.g. research.

I'm not discussing building a large army. I'm saying build military units instead when the buildings are not going to help your cities yet. I generally try to have at least a couple of units in each of my cities and about 3-6 on patrol, defending resources, and exploring. That's usually not enough to go over my free units limit.
I'm not describing an early rush strategy, I'm trying to make the point that building your cities up early is wasteful of early turns in many situations and it would be better to use the turns building military units that are useful and that you'd need to build eventually anyway.