The jump to Monarch seems tedious

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've read several people here say that the jump from Prince to Monarch, which I'm trying to make right now, is the toughest jump between levels -- and that may be so. But I'm wondering if anyone else finds/found the jump boring (though still tough). Here's what I'm observing/intuiting:

1) Levels seem to get tougher by granting more advantages to the AI, especially around production. This allows the AI to build bigger armies faster.

2) The AI also seems to be more agressive on higher levels.

3) 1 + 2 = earlier and more numerous wars.

4) The best (only?) hope for the human player, then, is to prepare for war immediately and exploit the one AI weakness: the AI's inferiority at military strategy and tactics.

So, that's what seems to me to be going on. What it seems to mean, though, is that, as levels get harder, the game seems to be more uniformly focused on warfare, and thus less interesting to a player (like me) who likes the balance of fighting and building. It also seems to me to mean that a bad start is more likely to doom you; I've won at lower levels without either copper or iron, for example, but I can't imagine that at higher levels.

My question to you all is: does this assessment seem right? If Civ4 does turn into a unilaterally war-focused game at higher levels, i may just settle in at Prince; but if it's possible to play a balanced game at higher levels, then I'll keep plugging away (and would sure appreciate some tips). Thanks, all!

[wodan11]

I don't disagree with your points. What I find questionable however are the following presumptions:

• war = tedium
  
• "balance of fighting and building" does not occur at high levels (in fact, I would suggest that a balance is not occurring at lower levels; instead, at lower levels the AI is leaving the player alone 80-90% of the time so the player can focus almost exclusively on building... this is not balance)
  
• implicit assumption that the player can't keep building while at war

I'm not trying to pick apart your argument. I guess as someone who plays at Immortal I look back the other way and see those lower levels as tedium because of the lack of war, the lack of balance. So actually this is an interesting discussion with quite different perspectives.

I don't think that a player must master AI inferiorities to get to higher level, though that's one way to do it. However, I do believe that the player must be prepared for and be good at war. This is something you don't have to do at lower levels, and I think lower levels to some extent "spoil" the player and in effect "train" the player into habits and strategies which are very difficult to be successful at higher levels.

[-Jrabbit]

Rufus sighting!!

How's it going, man?

[Brael]

I've read several people here say that the jump from Prince to Monarch, which I'm trying to make right now, is the toughest jump between levels -- and that may be so. But I'm wondering if anyone else finds/found the jump boring (though still tough). Here's what I'm observing/intuiting:

I found it more fun, the reason being I used to be a big time builder. I blame starting on settler as the cause. On low levels they give you such big bonuses that it's possible to play the game entirely as a builder. The game is about balance though and going all building or all military isn't balance. Low levels just reinforce bad play rather than teaching you the game. As I started going up and actually having to make units, the game became more fun since everything became more complex.

1) Levels seem to get tougher by granting more advantages to the AI, especially around production. This allows the AI to build bigger armies faster.

I don't disagree with this. It's more than just production though. They have lower maintence, production bonuses, research bonuses, less WW, less maintence, and so on. All of which contributes to allowing the AI to run a bigger army.

2) The AI also seems to be more agressive on higher levels.

I've never really noticed this. Rather what I have noticed is that because the AI can run a bigger army you need to run a bigger army to deter them. Being low on the power graph invites attack.

3) 1 + 2 = earlier and more numerous wars.

Build enough units and you can avoid attack by the non psychos. I've gone entire games at monarch without a war. Infact, I just played an Immortal game recently without a single war as well. I won it with a CV. I suspect it was largely due to the map type, it was basically small-medium sized continents and I didn't share mine with another AI.

4) The best (only?) hope for the human player, then, is to prepare for war immediately and exploit the one AI weakness: the AI's inferiority at military strategy and tactics.

I would agree you certainly should prepare for early war but it doesn't have to be too early. I find war before Code of Laws and Construction to be unproductive unless you can choke someone nearby. Prior to that war is mainly defensive and most military building goes towards taking out barbs (atleast in my games, but I play with raging barbs, normal or no barbs would be very different).

So, that's what seems to me to be going on. What it seems to mean, though, is that, as levels get harder, the game seems to be more uniformly focused on warfare, and thus less interesting to a player (like me) who likes the balance of fighting and building. It also seems to me to mean that a bad start is more likely to doom you; I've won at lower levels without either copper or iron, for example, but I can't imagine that at higher levels.

The question here is, what sort of balance do you mean? It's important on higher difficulties to make the key buildings in your cities and being able to build during war can be important as well. The trick is in getting just enough hammers towards a military so that you can deter/win fights without going overboard and wasting hammers that could have gone to buildings.

As for resources, I see them as a luxury. Truthfully, other than having a variety of counters the unit type you use doesn't mean much if you're the one attacking. Attacks really come down to siege weapons followed by units and a longbow or a knight have the same results when taking a siege destroyed city.

My question to you all is: does this assessment seem right? If Civ4 does turn into a unilaterally war-focused game at higher levels, i may just settle in at Prince; but if it's possible to play a balanced game at higher levels, then I'll keep plugging away (and would sure appreciate some tips). Thanks, all!

I wouldn't say it's focused on war, but it is focused more on war. You can't neglect your defense and you always have to keep yourself prepared for war. Winning without fighting on higher difficulties is very difficult but winning with 2 or so big wars is entirely possible, especially when you can take out your biggest competition.

[wertyu70]

My question to you all is: does this assessment seem right? If Civ4 does turn into a unilaterally war-focused game at higher levels, i may just settle in at Prince; but if it's possible to play a balanced game at higher levels, then I'll keep plugging away (and would sure appreciate some tips). Thanks, all!

I jumped to Monarch about 8 months ago and I'm about to try my first Emperor game.
When I first tried Monarch I had a similar impression: it seemed to me I was forced to focus only on soldiers and military techs.
Now most of the times I play peacefully for most of the game,
usually I start my first war when I get Cannons, to conquer my continent.
When I have enough land, I think over next step, sometimes I move to conquer the world,
sometimes I turtle up and go for a spaceship victory.

I think this can be named a balanced game.

The hard thing is to keep away war in the early game: one of the main differences with Prince is diplomacy, often you need to give in to some AI requests to keep them happy.

[a.kitman]

fellow peace nut here.
a few things that helped me get over monarch. religon, always be on the winning side. even abandon your own and try to get some other sucker act as a unit magnet.
i stoped haveing open boarder aggrement whit people unless they have a religon i want. i try to keep soldiers at the same rank as land area in the demographics screen.
except for the maniacs i can keep peace entire games now.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Rufus sighting!!

How's it going, man?

Hey, -Jrabbit, it's going well, though crazy busy (which is why it took me several days to get back to this). Afghanistan's a mess, though, and I'm not sure that's going to change.

But no one's blown me up yet!

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful input. I started a couple more games, and I keep seeing the same pattern. First off, I'm lucky if I have 5 cities before 1 AD (normal speed standard size map); 4 cities is the norm, after which teh AI's expansion advantage tends to box me in. If I concentrate on preparing for the AI militarily (by having 1 science city and 3 unit cities), I fall way behind in tech, and military size ends up not mattering; if I try to keep up technologically, I may well be able to do it but only at the expense of building military -- and am eventually faced with invading hordes. Basically, the game seems to end either in 500 AD, when their hordes of macemen and knights best my hordes of axmen and chariots; or in 50 AD, when their hordes of swordsmen and horse archers take out my 3-defenders-apiece cities.

I get that I have to prepare for war; I just don't know how to do that effectively, I guess. When the AI has more cities, more production, more money, and better techs, I just don't see what's left for me to exploit.

Clearly i need to adjust my thinking; I'm just not sure how. Poly taught me to win at Civ, back in the day; teach me again, fellas!

[a.kitman]

it gets a bit easier if you play whit no tech brokering.

[wertyu70]

The pattern that works for me (I play Epic speed, Standard size map) is the following:

1) Research: Forget early religions. Worker techs first, BW, then Pottery, Alphabet, Currency and Code of Laws. Now you have the basics for a good economy.
Delay Iron Working if possible, you can get it with tech trading.

2) Production: Forget early wonders. Focus on workers, settlers and soldiers,
with granary and libraries as soon as they are available.
You need just a fgoog unit production city,

3) Diplomacy: Don't convert to a religion as soon as possible. Wait to see the "religious blocks". Religion is a great way to get diplo bonus but also a malus source.
In the early game you need to gave in to some AI requests.
If think Diplomacy is the key to higher levels, I'm still learning how it works.
I heard of people winning a cultural victory at Emperor with just a defender per city.
It sounds unbeliavable to me.

4) Strategy: in my opinion the early game goal is survive and setup up a good economy
with 4-5 cities. After Code of Laws you can have a decent size empire (8-9 cities),
and you can start to think if it is better to conquer some land or to stay peacefully.
Usually clean up your continent is a good way to get a decisive advantage.


Post a game in AC era and I think many experts will give you a lot of good advice.

[Brael]

Hey, -Jrabbit, it's going well, though crazy busy (which is why it took me several days to get back to this). Afghanistan's a mess, though, and I'm not sure that's going to change.

But no one's blown me up yet!

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their thoughtful input. I started a couple more games, and I keep seeing the same pattern. First off, I'm lucky if I have 5 cities before 1 AD (normal speed standard size map); 4 cities is the norm, after which teh AI's expansion advantage tends to box me in. If I concentrate on preparing for the AI militarily (by having 1 science city and 3 unit cities), I fall way behind in tech, and military size ends up not mattering; if I try to keep up technologically, I may well be able to do it but only at the expense of building military -- and am eventually faced with invading hordes. Basically, the game seems to end either in 500 AD, when their hordes of macemen and knights best my hordes of axmen and chariots; or in 50 AD, when their hordes of swordsmen and horse archers take out my 3-defenders-apiece cities.

I get that I have to prepare for war; I just don't know how to do that effectively, I guess. When the AI has more cities, more production, more money, and better techs, I just don't see what's left for me to exploit.

Clearly i need to adjust my thinking; I'm just not sure how. Poly taught me to win at Civ, back in the day; teach me again, fellas!

Post a couple game saves up and you can get better advice, otherwise it's pretty much all the general advice that gets given over and over.

5 cities by 1 ad isn't that bad really, I usually have 4 or 5 cities. Really that's all you want until Code of Laws, then you can start expanding again. With 5 cities I would suggest two devoted to military and 3 to your economy with one economy city running specialists (or more, but even with a cottage economy you want one generating great people).

If you're fighting stacks of enemies you want catapults, nothing else will come close to being as effective. Other than that, try to fight with counters. If they come at you with maces, use crossbows, if you're attacked by horses use pikes, and so on. Usually the AI will only attack with UU's, maces, and pikes which makes defense rather easy (sometimes horses too if they have them).

It's preferable to not have your city attacked in the first place, rather killing the enemy in the field but if you need to defend in the city, you may want to consider placing those border cities on hills. The extra 25% bonus is very nice and it helps archers/longbows even more.

As for what you exploit, the AI is bad at tactics. It ALWAYS fights the exact same way. They make 1-2 stacks containing all their units, send them in, build a new stack, and send it. It's incapable of dealing with siege weapons, and once it targets a city, it won't go for another city unless you lose it, or you take one of theirs. On top of that, the AI loves combat promotions too much. Use your promotions to vary troops. Give yourself medics, make crossbows with shock, have some elephants that excel against mounted and some against melee, and so on.

[rah]

Yeah, the only time I'll let them attack cities is prior to siege engines. There is nothing more hilarious then watching Monty's jag warriors attacking a city with a few axes in it. The combat log scrolls through quickly all green and the stack is just gone. Promos for all.

[Ming]

And I love even better when their stack gets next to your city, and has more than enough units to take it, but then spends two or three turns taking down the city walls with two cats, while you bring up more units to defend and eventually attack out... You have to love the AI

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Ok, I'm going to post a save here. Here's the summary:

Standard map, continents, normal speed. I'm the Sumerians.
It's 200 AD. I have 5 cities, each of which has one food special and at least one other special; I've tried to minimize both gaps between cities and overlap. There's an ok spot for a sixth city about halfway between Kish and Ur, but I don't think I can grab it yet without crashing my economy; other than that, I'm boxed in.

I've beelined Priesthood in lieu of Code of Laws because I get Ziggurats, not Courthouses; I've built 1 and am building 3 more. My capital is my science city, and the plan is for Lagash to be my secondary econ city; others will produce units.

I'm 1 turn away from Currency. I have all the basic worker techs.

I've largely taken the advice of staying away from early wonders but, since I had stone I couldn't resist the Pyramids.

I probably need to move the larger armies on the coast to the interior cities. I should probably also convert to Hinduism. Otherwise I'm currently in pretty good shape, but am not sure I can maintain it. I'm also not sure what to research next; Math->Construction, I guess. Tell me what you think.

[Brael]

Since you're running representation, get more specialists. I only see your capital running 2 scientists, Lagash can support 2 scientists right now while Eridu can build a library in 5 turns and support 2 and Kish can get to work on a granary/library (after that ziggurat) and run 2 as well.

Uruk is kind of large. Larger populations are more maintence costs, I would probably whip in a monastery and limit growth either using the button or by working plains hills. Early on I never go above 6 people in a city really.

I notice you're running slavery but you don't have unhappy in any cities from it. There's not much point to running the civic if you don't use it to construct stuff. Infact, to illustrate the higher maintenance costs, just whipping in ziggurats before the next turn puts them in your cities brings you up from 20% to 30% science (50% once they're built).

Uruk should be put on units, it's your best production city right now and you need cities with solid hammer output to defend yourself. It has the food sources at 7 people to generate 15 hammers and run 1 scientist or by giving up 1 commerce it can grow to size 8 and generate 15 hammers with 2 scientists.

Trade techs. You've got plenty that others want, you might as well trade and get a few more beakers for your research. It can also get you some extra diplomacy boosts. Trade with Saladin/Alex and you can keep currency all to yourself for a bit.

I see you made barracks in Lagash and Kish. Those cities don't have anything to contribute to an army (Kish does if you keep the forests, but cottages are worth more honestly, and you can turn those forests into a wonder), they'll likely never produce a unit (or very few units) so that's a waste of hammers. Eridu is a good secondary unit city. At 6 people it can support 2 specialists and 11 hammers, at 7 people it could run 1 specialist and 14 hammers. With civil service it can eventually run more farms and support 2 specialists plus all those 1 food hammer tiles.

War wise I would look to Qin first, but finish expanding before you attack. If you keep good relations with Alex he probably won't attack you. Alex is a bit unpredictable but his AI acts a lot like a players mindset, basically if you're useful to him he'll save you for last.

As for what to research, aesthetics is good for trade value and leads to literature which has the great library (good use for chopping those forests in Kish). On top of that the parthenon is a good wonder to have. I would probably go math for better chops, then aesthetics for wonders, then literature for wonders, then construction for catapults.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Great analysis!

It's true that I don't use slavery as effectively as I could; that's something I'm working on. Step one will be to whip the Ziggs.

Good point about the specialists as well; that's another blind spot for me, though it's complicated here by not having Code of Laws (and therefore access to a range of specialists through Caste System).

Finally, good point about the barracks, too; not sure what (or even if) I was thinking there.

Really appreciate your taking the time to comment; thanks!