Economics is the key to win?

[Lambiorix_be]

Every time I play Civ I notice that it is not so much of how many 'soldiers' you have but the capacity to make them that made the difference between winning or losing a game.

For this reason I never become an 'evil aggressor' before I have discovered knights (or are at the verge of discovering them). Why not? Because I like knights but mainly because at that time I already have a relative large number of cities that are capable of producing 'high end' units at a rate of 1 to 2 turns.

Although I always try to capture at least one city in my first attack I don't despair If lose a lot of units at the start. Since I can throw more 'high end' units at the ennemy then he/she can produce to defend I always win. It is not uncommon in my first wars that the first turns are really a slaughter on my side (losing 4 to 1 units) but after a while the opposition is burned out and the rest of the war is just a run over. (the AI tends by the way to concentrate most of his forces into the threatened city instead of trying to go on the offensive and attack my weak spots (maybe in Civ5 the AI should be able to accept the loss of one city for the bigger advantage of threatening several of the opponents cities. That's how I play when attacked by another civ.) The AI does not understand that its downfall is not just the units at its doors but the industrial capacity of its opponent and thus should focus its strategy on destroying that advantage as soon as possible.

I was wondering if the more experienced people who play at the higher difficulty levels (I play always warlord) recognize this strategy or is there another way to win the game. (beside the fact that I am a softy and like my 'core empire' to be able to work at peace, prosperity & spaceships )

[snoopy369]

You have the basic idea right, although it sounds like your tactics is insufficient to moving up - you shouldn't lose 4:1 ratio, at any point. Do you properly use combined arms?

[TriMiro]

Numbers make the strength, but 4:1 is high. At the age of Knights you should be able to do 2:1 at most. Knights are good, but make sure you promote them, combat 2 vs Longbowman and combat + shock for Pikeman. Weker cities would fall that way easily. For the heavy ones I suggest Maceman + Trebuchets combined in the obvious way. Longbowmen don't stand a chance against that combination.

Economy if the key to win in every game. Science means bigger army and better technology (try Maceman attack before the AI has Maceman) and industry means bigger army. Knights before anyone has Pikeman is also very powerful.

In general war is the AI's biggest weakness, that is where you can win most easily.

[Colm]

When I went one difficulty level higher, I had great problems with reaching the end of the game.
But then I saw the benefit of the religous building (1 gold per city with state religion).
Even in the early game, those few cold-coins per turn extra helped me so much that I'm walking over the enemy with ease. Now I'm trying to get this Great Prophet as early as possible by placing 2-3 religous wonders in the same city (usually the Oracle and Chichen Itza is enough).

[Unimatrix11]

Well, as for war strategies, i go with Clausewitz, who stated the sequence of obejectives in war as this:

a) destroy enemy army
b) take enemy land
c) break the enemy´s will

There is little point in snatching a city, when the enemy can take it right back. In fact the A.I. does this often, taking heavy casualties in the process and this usually is the turning point of a war it declared on me. Reminds me of Stalingrad sometimes, a historical occasion that showed that a) comes before b) and what will happen if b) comes before a)....

So if my stack is faced with an enemy stack to the west and an enemy city to the east, i turn west first, destroying the stack and only after that i turn east, trying to take the city...

[Tattila the Hun]

Unfortunately, Paulus had promoted his troops to City Raiders.

[The Priest]

Unfortunately, Paulus had promoted his troops to City Raiders.

Just shows, don't promote your units until you are going to use them.

But I agree completely - snatching cities very rarely works - since the AI won't then agree to peace until its field army has engaged, unless you are truly dominant, he is tied up in wars elsewhere etc.

Engage and destroy that field army - you will have to face it so draw it into a killing zone of your choice ... like some nice wooded hills.

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by snoopy369
You have the basic idea right, although it sounds like your tactics is insufficient to moving up - you shouldn't lose 4:1 ratio, at any point. Do you properly use combined arms?

Not often. Mostly I stick to mounted units because they reach the battleground quicker and thus keep the pressure upon my opponent. If a city is next to my border I also use siege weapons to destroy the defences but after that speed is more imortant then the life of my soldiers (I want wars to be as short as possible in order to minimize the effect on my economy)

I forgot to say that I always try to found the maximum number religions so that my great prophets can create their unique temples and I can start collecting lots of money (certainly early in the game this makes a difference). I always go for the following civic: organized religion, free market, free speech and emancipation.

[Unimatrix11]

Quite the contrary here: Most times i play without using mounted units for the entire game (except elephants if i have ivory).

You state Your predominant use of mounted units on two premises:

a) They get to the front faster, so You can put more pressure on Your enemy.

b) The faster war is putting less starin on Your economy.

Now, I´d not say that both premises are completely invalid, but there are things to consider:

a) The pressure You put on an enemy mostly depends on Your build-up before the war. Here mounted vs. unmounted make little difference. It also depends on Your building capacity during the war, if it is prolonged, in order to reinforce. In the later case, distance and speed are not that important - once the water comes out of the tube, it will be a steady stream, no matter how long it takes to run through it.

b) Saving units is also a way to have less strain on Your economy. You need to build less, so Your cities (or some of them at least) can switch from hammers to commerce... If You dont loose many units, it might happen, You dont need any reinforcements at all (except for defending conquered cities).

Mixing troops is extremely important and IMHO the mounted category is the first one, one can skip, if one chooses so.

(All for SP - that is)

[mrp]

I useually go the slow city raider route over the throw cav unit after cav unit. As far as economy goes mine every hill unless it is a city that can't have irrigation. 5 farms if a river get some watermills keep some trees for health and lumber mills. Then add a few towns. Go after a religion in beginning and go after a great prophet and easy wonder and will greatly help your commerce. So basically go farm Prod commerce. Clear any tree next too a river

Exception Napoleon Euro town everything except hill there still build mines

On a regular game I am usually usually peacefully expanding in ancient times military expanding in more modern times

[Supr49er]

All the fighting in Stalingrad led to the birth of Russian GG Georgy Zhukov.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Lambiorix_be


Not often. Mostly I stick to mounted units because they reach the battleground quicker and thus keep the pressure upon my opponent. If a city is next to my border I also use siege weapons to destroy the defences but after that speed is more imortant then the life of my soldiers (I want wars to be as short as possible in order to minimize the effect on my economy)

I forgot to say that I always try to found the maximum number religions so that my great prophets can create their unique temples and I can start collecting lots of money (certainly early in the game this makes a difference). I always go for the following civic: organized religion, free market, free speech and emancipation.

Definitely the problem, then... Civ4 is not Civ3
Civics - don't have an 'optimal civic'. There are lots of 'optimal civics' based on the current game, and if you're not able to change based on the situation, you won't be able to make use of that...

[Blaupanzer]

Cavalry stacks are most useful for pillaging -- laying the land to waste. Pick a city away from your conquering route and include a few anti-melee knights in your raiding stack. Then go destroy mines, quarries, farms, plantations, and towns down to cottages -- getting money for each one along the way. The key here is to weaken a productive city. This works especially well with musketmen (or the 2-move spearmen one of the civs has) to provide a more effective defense for the stack.

Otherwise, I use mounted units on home territory defense, where they can move 6 to the invaders 1 or 2. These and catapults crash into the invading SOD to ruin its effectiveness, including eating up the cats and trebs with flanking effects.

For invasions I use pikes, seige weapons, and macemen. For that, knights are superfluous. I do take a few along because they can kill an opponent next to my stack and return to the stack on the same turn.

[Nikomakkos]

I use mounted units mostly for medics (I like to use a Great General to make a super mounted medic with Medic III promotion), and scouting (Sentry promotion). What Blaupanzer said about them is also true.