It's very frustrating to play as a builder

[rah]

My post was just intended to convey my personal preferences when I play. People should play the game the way they have fun playing. I just like a little action.

And yes a.kitman, i have to agree that the diplo scoring needs to be improved, but there are some rules for each civ that you can count on.

[Blaupanzer]

My post was just intended to convey my personal preferences when I play. People should play the game the way they have fun playing. I just like a little action.

And yes a.kitman, i have to agree that the diplo scoring needs to be improved, but there are some rules for each civ that you can count on.

Care to elaborate? Know about the psychos and the viciously treacherous Katherine, but not aware that Sumer would attack with high positives. Or is it the "pleased," "cautious," etc. that you were referring to -- which are only dimly related to the "At a Glance" numbers on that diplomatic adviser screen?

[wodan11]

What I find frustrating is when I lose battles with over 90% odds.

I'd suspect that the average person might lose 1 in every ten or dozen such battles.

Just a guess.

[rah]

Yes,
Sumer won't attack at friendly to my knowledge.
But if he's at pleased, you're fair game. Early in the game it's almost impossible to get him to friendly so basically no matter how good you are to him, you're still fair game. Which is a sore point with me. Granted I know you can't make it so easy since a Human can take advantage of this type of system. But I do remember being attacked by the NA when I was at +17. That just makes be not want to bother with it.

[rah]

I'd suspect that the average person might lose 1 in every ten or dozen such battles.

Just a guess.

Yes I would tend to agree.

[Boracks]

Basically, what I've found out (not scientific by any stretch):

Furious: I'm going to attack you! Whenever!
Annoyed: I'm going to get ready and attack you!
Cautious: I'm going to attack you if I see an advantage.
Pleased: I'm going to attack you if I feel you're weak.
Friendly: I won't attack you but I'll let others through so they can.

For the psycos, read up one line.

[Garth Vader]

Why should it be any different for AI's as it is for humans? Have you ever attacked anybody at pleased or friendly? I know I have

[rah]

Just because someone is pleased with me does not mean that I'm pleased with them

[brandonjm8]

diplomacy aside you should always construct defenses along borders and coasts, a big army will deter almost anyone. if you are low in power expect to be picked on by others stronger than you. for some builders that struggle, build units in between infrastructure in all cities, like have your highest hammer city build your strongest offensive units and have your lower hammer cities build defensive units in between builds. a good rule i follow is "have at least 4 strong defensive units per city" more on the border and coastal cities. look at the demographics screen often to gauge your army's strength and keep up with them, being strong yourself is a strong deterrent.

[fed1943]

A builder hits the enter key, after checking each city and worker to get +1 food,+1 hammer,
+1 commerce, +1 unit, if real time allows of course.
A builder just needs to learn warmongering and is willing to, because he knows how can war
smash him, as this happens fast and clear.
May be an warmonger has more trouble to see the advantages of the building part, because
it happens slowly and hidden.

[wodan11]

a good rule i follow is "have at least 4 strong defensive units per city" more on the border and coastal cities.

There are few reasons to have more than 1 unit per city, except in border cities. 1 unit is needed for happiness. More is unnecessary.

I usually have 1 defensive unit in my border cities; some border cities, if they could be attacked in 1 turn only (culture pressure or on the coast) will get 2-3 defensive units. Interior cites get 1 obsolete unit each... units I couldn't be bothered to upgrade. I also maintain centrally-located counter-attacking mini-SODs. At least one, sometimes several, as many as needed to rally to any point on my border in no more than 2 turns.

look at the demographics screen often to gauge your army's strength and keep up with them, being strong yourself is a strong deterrent.

That is good advice.

[Dinner]

Why? Reasons:

1. Low final score;

2. Always worry some psychos might attack you;

3. Can't control your own destiny.


I'd like to hear your perspectives.

In MP a builder can usually build up, watch some neighbors go to war, and then attack after they're both exhausted. I call it they hybrid builder.

[brandonjm8]

There are few reasons to have more than 1 unit per city, except in border cities. 1 unit is needed for happiness. More is unnecessary.

I usually have 1 defensive unit in my border cities; some border cities, if they could be attacked in 1 turn only (culture pressure or on the coast) will get 2-3 defensive units. Interior cites get 1 obsolete unit each... units I couldn't be bothered to upgrade. I also maintain centrally-located counter-attacking mini-SODs. At least one, sometimes several, as many as needed to rally to any point on my border in no more than 2 turns.

if you build like me then having 4 strong units per city is wise, i often build in a circle (not always, but eventually thats what its going to look like) so with 4 units per city defensive ones not offensive those defensive units can move anywhere and since you have 4/city you have tons to move for support, and with your strong offensive units i agree put them in mini SoD's and strategically placed. with my current game following my strategy i have over 180 infantry on my main island, come try to take even one city, i can send at least 30+ infantry to any city in any turn following the AT LEAST 4/city rule, leaves you more support to use for defense should you need it and thus builds your power, ive had huge power leads by just having an awesome defense. like in football defenses will win more often than offenses, this game aint football but the same holds true.

there are reasons i build an defense before offense, dont get me wrong tho, i build an offense too my mini SoD's but with those coupled with my 4/city rule, ive yet to lose a city in bts, ive only played 3-4 games but ive yet to lose a city or even the game for that matter, lol. DEFENSE, DEFENSE, DEFENSE.

[One_more_turn]

It's much easier to go after them than to defend all those possible invasion routes.

It's much cheaper to get their cities, their people, their improvements, and their buildings than to make your own. Besides, I get to train an elite veteran army during the process.

With every conquered AI, you have one less enemy to worry about, and more resources at your own disposal. It's like the snowball effect.

[Baldyr]

I used to have a rule about 3 defensive units per city. (I think this was back in Civ1 or Civ2 days, I don't remember exactly.) But it always seemed very wasteful, especially if my empire was big and compact.

Then I started experimenting with a mobile defense (I believe this was with Civ3), always having exactly two tiles between cities. This made it possible to move defensive units (say 2-3 per city in peace time, for happiness purposes) one city closer to the border regions from the innermost cities and outward, without ever leaving any units out in the open and thus not suppressing discontent. The effect was exactly the same as if the unit in the cities farther most from the borders had moved their units all the way to front-line cities in one turn, as every city in between would have (about) the same number of defensive units.s

This would keep up as many turn as the emergency at hand required, emptying the inland cities in a wave like pattern. If I would go all out with this call to arms, every single city would only have one defender (or none, in extreme cases, since there wasn't a happy penalty for undefended cities back then, was there?) and my border cities would be packed with 10+ defensive units by then.

I remember using mounted units in a similar fashion as my counter attack force. They resided where ever there were happiness issues during peace time, frog-leaping two cities at the time (because they have double the movement compared to the defensive infantry) when required. This strategy wasn't too bad for defense with civ3, especially if I remember the AI building some monster stacks!

Nowadays (with Civ4) having defensive units isn't that much an happiness maintenance issue (since Hereditary Rule isn't my favorite civic by any means), I seldom have more than one defensive unit in my heartland cities. Border cities can get anything from 3 to 5 defensive units of varying sort (I tend to think in terms of "combined arms") that should also be able to make a limited counter attack. (I always have siege units with the Barrage promotions in defensive locations to reduce the strength of incoming SoD:s.)

Note that I'm also fortifying other defensive positions along my borders in a similar manner, not only the out-most cities. These defensive units (really a variety of units, ranging from the City Garrison type units to mounted ones, and later I like to include Marines) are then supplemented by a my offensive armies, which would be spread out along my frontiers like mini stacks, I presume you would call the. These future SoD:s are always under construction and will receive new recruits all the time (due to heavy city specialization, with some cities entirely devoted to building units, pretty much the entire game). If war brakes out before these stacks reach critical mass (become strong enough for me to start a war on one or more fronts) they will either move separately to reinforce my troubled borders, or combine into a SoD and go on the offensive right away (if no attack seems to follow the DoW).

Since these offensive stacks are spread out strategically, it shouldn't take more than a few turns for any border region to be reinforced with offensive units. I really don't build defensive reserves anymore, but use the existing "police forces" (as I call them) in my inland cities to reinforce any breaches in my defenses along the borders. (These get upgraded and promoted too, before reaching the front-lines. I seldom give units any promotions before a war actually brakes out and thus know if they will be having a defensive or a offensive role, and what units it will be facing.) This does leave me entirely unprotected in large areas during a total war scenario, but drafting can be very helpful here, so I'd switch to Nationalism in preparation of any all-out war. These reserves tend to move outward too, but hey, its not like I'm running out of people to conscript!

That's pretty much how my thinking has evolved over the years in defensive planning. I'm always ready to experiment with other configurations, but I do hate the feeling that I'm wasting any resources, so it has to feel cost-effective and flexible enough to me. Next up I'm gonna play Russia and recreate the USSR (RFC scenario) and try to replicate the Soviet Army in the late 20th century. This could teach me a thing or two about defensive planning, since the configuration I'll be modeling my defenses after will be after the Soviets adopted a strictly defensive military policy. With offensive capabilities, I might add.