Advice needed for builder/warmonger!

[damarcus]

Hi, I've been playing Civ IV on and off, and I've been trying to win on the Monarch level. It's been kind of frustrating, because I actually still haven't secured a win on that setting yet. I play Monarch, Epic Length, Very Large Map. I usually pick financial/creative (Russia) or financial/industrious (China) as my civ. The game described here is when I played China.

My playing style is to build first, outtech the AI's, and wage a war using my tech lead. I have no problem taking out the 2nd most powerful civ or the 3rd most powerful, but I find that the warring really complicates matters in the end game. In my last game, I was the most powerful civ, and I ended up going to war with 3 or 4 other civs (out of 9) later. I guess if I really, really wanted, I could have focused and won the game, but I was really tired after playing for 18 straight hours. I made some careless mistakes in the warring and I quit the game.

In my last game, I had a dominant tech lead over the AI's throughout the middle ages and the modern age. I had tanks, carriers, fighters and bombers against my AI enemies who were fighting, at best, with SAM infantry and infantry (but mostly with calvary and some with longbow archers). So why did I resign? It was a combination of things: It seemed eventually I had to war against 4-5 other civs to keep them from developing, and when I killed one, thes other grew, etc., and on an extra large map, the warring was just mentally wearing me out. So I just played sloppy in the mid-to-late game and when things got frustrating I quit the game.

Here are my questions:

1. It seemed as my warring years continued, my people were becoming more and more and more discontent. Is changing the Police State the answer to this problem? I was using some other civic, because I wasn't expecting the unhappiness to grow over time. How do you deal with unhappiness when you're almost always at war in the mid-to-late game?

2. How many cities should I have by the end game? I tried to stick to a core group of 7 to 8 cities, and I didn't bother expanding after that (b/c of the city maintenance fears). But after this experience, I'm thinking that maybe the optimal # of cities in the mid-to-late game is about 10 or 12? What do you think?

3. I know that railroad speeds up movement and also gives +1 production if it is built over MINES (and mines only). My question is, does building a railroad also provide other production benefits, on special resource squares for example?

4. I found that the reason I was so dominant in this game is because I managed to found two religions -- and I basically spread those two around the entire world and used the Great Prophets to build the religious temples very early on. This was incredible, because in the late game, I was getting 50+ gold with my science rate at 100%! I was so rich and so advanced in techs that I had tanks in 1500-1600's. Should I incorporate this founding religion strategy into every game now? Or is there a flexible way to deviate from the "founding religion to get money" strategy?

5. Do you like to use bombers or fighters? Bombers seem a little too "stationary" since they can't be stationed on carriers, although they do more damage. I don't like to move bomber to a captured enemy city, to begin another round of assaults, b/c I normally just raze enemy cities (they are poorly located, and I don't want to expand my empire beyond 8 cities, for fear that city upkeep will be too much). How do you use your airforce effectively?

6. I suppose if I really wanted to win, I could win by space race or UN victory, but my preference is to outtech, and win by military domination (i.e. crush the other 8 civs militarily). Is this too difficult a task in a large map with 9 civs on monarchy?

Your thoughts will be helpful! Thanks in advance.

[damarcus]

Also, one more question: How do you know what techs the AI does have or doesn't have? I know that when you go to diplomatic screen with the AI, the techs they don't have appear on your tech list, and vice versa, but I found this isn't really accurate. For example, in my last game, the enemy AI's seemed to have flight (b/c it didn't appear on my list of techs to offer them) but then later on it appeared on my list of techs to offer them. I think this is b/c flight was just too advanced for them that it didn't appear on the list?

One of the things I really miss from Civ 2 is the setting up the embassy function, where you could see the list of techs AI has and what they are researching, etc. Is there a way to accurately find out what techs the AI's have?

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by damarcus
One of the things I really miss from Civ 2 is the setting up the embassy function, where you could see the list of techs AI has and what they are researching, etc. Is there a way to accurately find out what techs the AI's have?

The diplo screen is accurate enough. But if the AI needs a pre-req to get to a tech that you have, you will only see that they need the pre-req. If you give them that, it will take another round of AI turns before they realise that you have the next tech as well.

p.s. Sometimes I've noticed a few turns delay between when you get a tech and when it appears on the AI wish-list

[DaveV]

Answering the last question: when a tech appears on your list, it means at least one AI doesn't have that tech. It may be that several of them do already have it. To check an individual AI, click on its leaderhead and you'll get a list of techs you have and that AI doesn't. Still not the same as Civ2, but I've gotten used to it.

General answer to the first post: more cities. Even though each city will cost you some money, a decent city will give you more money than you have to spend on it. Eight or even twelve cities is a pretty small number on a large map.

[Metaliturtle]

not too difficult at all, If you're getting a tech advantage in the middle ages, send your teched-up units out for a bit o' fun. If you don't have a lot, have them trash luxury resources and cottages, it will net you some additional cash to use on upgrading and also stymie their build efforts, crippling the other civ.

Soon you will see them still pumping out spearmen whilst you're driving tanks to their walls, of course they'll win 1 in 3 or so, but you will come out ahead.

Aircraft? You use aircraft?

Railroads give you the production bonus on lumbermills too.

To deal w/unhappiness you should probably be setting up some of those religious temples/cathedrals in your city, you can also tinker with the culture slider, or capture enemy cities that have luxury resources that your people aren't receiving. Slavery is also a fun choice.

[ColdPhoenix]

To make a start at answering your questions:

1: If you're going to be at war constantly in the late game and are having trouble with war-weariness then using the police state civic would help with this. I think it also increases unit production but am not sure as I've never used this civic. I do have quite long wars in the early game but by the late game (with bombers and tanks) I have quick decisive wars. "Shock and awe", use overwealming power to grab a number of cities quickly then turn them to a vassal or finish them off depending on the size of the civ and where their cities are.

2: With a very large (huge?) map you'll want to have a more cities than you're currently getting.

3: Railroads also give +1 on quarries and lumbermills.

4: It's always good to have the holy city of a well spread religion. Doesn't mean you have to found the religion though. You could just capture the city after letting someone else do the hard work. With a big empire having the spiral minoret can bring in a lot of money, it's religion based too though.

5: I mostly use bombers. If you've got a number of them they can reduce city defences to almost nothing in one turn, your tanks can then just take it easily. Stick a couple of defenders in it, rebase the bombers to it if they're out of range of other enemy cities, then take the next city. If your "military city" is churning out defenders and has an airport you can transport the defenders to the city directly.

6: You'll find it much easier if you have some early wars as well. It'll give you a bigger base to out-tech people, reduce the number of cities you'll have to take in late game, and weaken one or more opponents.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Re: Advice needed for builder/warmonger!

Originally posted by damarcus
Hi, I've been playing Civ IV on and off, and I've been trying to win on the Monarch level. It's been kind of frustrating, because I actually still haven't secured a win on that setting yet. I play Monarch, Epic Length, Very Large Map. I usually pick financial/creative (Russia) or financial/industrious (China) as my civ. The game described here is when I played China.

My playing style is to build first, outtech the AI's, and wage a war using my tech lead. I have no problem taking out the 2nd most powerful civ or the 3rd most powerful, but I find that the warring really complicates matters in the end game. In my last game, I was the most powerful civ, and I ended up going to war with 3 or 4 other civs (out of 9) later. I guess if I really, really wanted, I could have focused and won the game, but I was really tired after playing for 18 straight hours. I made some careless mistakes in the warring and I quit the game.

In my last game, I had a dominant tech lead over the AI's throughout the middle ages and the modern age. I had tanks, carriers, fighters and bombers against my AI enemies who were fighting, at best, with SAM infantry and infantry (but mostly with calvary and some with longbow archers). So why did I resign? It was a combination of things: It seemed eventually I had to war against 4-5 other civs to keep them from developing, and when I killed one, thes other grew, etc., and on an extra large map, the warring was just mentally wearing me out. So I just played sloppy in the mid-to-late game and when things got frustrating I quit the game.

Note:
I play large maps and normal speed, so some of this may be off because of that.

Here are my questions:

1. It seemed as my warring years continued, my people were becoming more and more and more discontent. Is changing the Police State the answer to this problem? I was using some other civic, because I wasn't expecting the unhappiness to grow over time. How do you deal with unhappiness when you're almost always at war in the mid-to-late game?

First of all, I try to get most warring out of the way earlier. But, to deal with it, your best bets are getting Mount Rushmore, and the wonders that give the +happy resources (rock&Roll, etc), and DON'T BE AFRAID TO USE THE CULTURE SLIDER. You got that much of a tech advantage, you don't need to be researching at 80%, use that gold to make folk happy. Police state can help, and make sure you're getting the most out of your religion(s). Sometimes Free Religion isn't the best for happy reasons at this point. Others it is.

2. How many cities should I have by the end game? I tried to stick to a core group of 7 to 8 cities, and I didn't bother expanding after that (b/c of the city maintenance fears). But after this experience, I'm thinking that maybe the optimal # of cities in the mid-to-late game is about 10 or 12? What do you think?

I have to guess this is horribly low. I have 20ish minimum on large maps by end game. I also tend to run a specialist economy through the mid game to deal with the maintenance problem, though. After some time building banks, universities, etc, I switch back to the more standard economy.

4. I found that the reason I was so dominant in this game is because I managed to found two religions -- and I basically spread those two around the entire world and used the Great Prophets to build the religious temples very early on. This was incredible, because in the late game, I was getting 50+ gold with my science rate at 100%! I was so rich and so advanced in techs that I had tanks in 1500-1600's. Should I incorporate this founding religion strategy into every game now? Or is there a flexible way to deviate from the "founding religion to get money" strategy?

I prefer to let my neighbor found my religion for me.

5. Do you like to use bombers or fighters? Bombers seem a little too "stationary" since they can't be stationed on carriers, although they do more damage. I don't like to move bomber to a captured enemy city, to begin another round of assaults, b/c I normally just raze enemy cities (they are poorly located, and I don't want to expand my empire beyond 8 cities, for fear that city upkeep will be too much). How do you use your airforce effectively?

Vs the AI: Bombers all the way. rebase them to a nearby city, bombard defenses to 0 then units as far as it'll let me, kill everything remaining with helicopters, the tanks will catch up to capture the city later, move on to bombarding the next city. I typically have enough bombers and copters to do this to 3 cities simultaneously.

One minor note, you don't want to do this on the first turn of a war. Get the AI's massive stack of death to reveal itself the first turn or two, then bombard and destroy it before proceeding with the above strategy or your copters wont be around very long. (assuming an AI with Sam Inf there)

6. I suppose if I really wanted to win, I could win by space race or UN victory, but my preference is to outtech, and win by military domination (i.e. crush the other 8 civs militarily). Is this too difficult a task in a large map with 9 civs on monarchy?

Not at all, but sounds like you might need to get going on the warmaking earlier.

[damarcus]

Thank you all for your input. I have to say the two things I have always loved about Civilization series are, first, the tremendous complexity of the game (and I think Civ IV is probably the BEST Civ game in that regard; it is SO difficult to master and it is SO challenging for even experienced strategy gamers like myself) and second, the wonderfully supportive community like this. I think Civ IV is a true masterpiece that gets the balance just so right in so many ways.

[eluciv]

Originally posted by damarcus
I think Civ IV is a true masterpiece that gets the balance just so right in so many ways.

I agree. I just wish they could find a "better" way to approach difficulty levels other than giving insane advantages to the AI - like maybe a smarter AI. Personally, I think Blake's additions have done as much for the game as anything - even if they knocked me down a level.

[zeace]

Yeah, I feel a lot better about going from Noble Better AI to Prince Better AI than I felt about going from Noble Standard AI to Prince Standard AI. I prefer knowing that the reason I'm getting beat is better play, not bonuses...