Taking my Game to the Next Level

[QuestGAV]

Hey guys, I'm a long-time casual Civ player. I can win consistently at Monarch and if I played enough games I'd probably win about 50% at the next level. I'm looking to take the next step and have a few questions on how those of you who play at the higher levels get it done. I'm pretty good with REX and I've recently started condensing my city sites for faster development and less corruption. My questions are mostly centered around what else fits into the early game...

1. Do you start your first wars right as you bump up against another civ or do you fill in the available spaces with settlers before pumping resources into your military?

2. Do you build barracks before your first wars?

3. Are there any other improvements you feel must be built in early game? I'm a big proponent of temples to expand my borders but it feels like they slow down my ability to get things cracking militarily. When do the libraries, marketplaces, and courthouses go up?

4. Is there a consensus on high mobility armies vs. stronger but slower armies? I've always relied on horseman, knights, cavalry, and their unique equivalents, but I've noticed some people are high on better attack value + artillery.

5. Do you go through oscillating wars taking a few cities at a time or do you go for broke? Does this differ from early to late game?

6. Obviously, your ability to decimate another civilization depends largely on your ability to avoid revolts in the cities you have just taken. When you're pushing deep into another civ's territory, how many troops do you devote to garrisons in the rear of your offensive? How does that number change as the game goes on?

7. Do you care what other civs think of you? For a long-time I subscribed to the go-it-alone philosophy but in my most recent game I really took the sting out of an AI offensive by bribing an enemy in their rear into an alliance. They never really recovered. Do you foster the good relationships over time or do you just wait till you need them and pay the full price then?

8. What traits have the biggest impact? I'm growing fond of agricultural and have always loved religious and industrious. I saw a few people mention commercial in another thread but I can't really wrap my head around it. I suppose the lower corruption gives you a higher ceiling, but without the productivity advantages you get from some of the other traits you seem less likely to realize that ceiling.

9. Do you stick with a particular government in most games or do you switch back and forth? Do you stay at peace long enough to make a conversion to democracy/republic worthwhile? Do you try to fight short wars in a democracy/republic and end them quick to avoid the weariness? Or do you stick with the war governments? I've always opted for communism in the mid-late game to keep my border cities from being useless. Is there a better way to wage your conquests?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Re: Taking my Game to the Next Level

Originally posted by QuestGAV
Hey guys, I'm a long-time casual Civ player. I can win consistently at Monarch and if I played enough games I'd probably win about 50% at the next level. I'm looking to take the next step and have a few questions on how those of you who play at the higher levels get it done. I'm pretty good with REX and I've recently started condensing my city sites for faster development and less corruption. My questions are mostly centered around what else fits into the early game...

1. Do you start your first wars right as you bump up against another civ or do you fill in the available spaces with settlers before pumping resources into your military?

"bump up against"?

If you mean as soon as I meet them? Yes. First war is usually before borders are touching.

2. Do you build barracks before your first wars?

Yes. Almost always

3. Are there any other improvements you feel must be built in early game? I'm a big proponent of temples to expand my borders but it feels like they slow down my ability to get things cracking militarily. When do the libraries, marketplaces, and courthouses go up?

Granaries in at least 2 cities. Libs and Markets typically before Temples when not religious. Courts in select cities that'll benefit from them.

4. Is there a consensus on high mobility armies vs. stronger but slower armies? I've always relied on horseman, knights, cavalry, and their unique equivalents, but I've noticed some people are high on better attack value + artillery.

There's little consensus on anything. I'm a mobile guy myself as well.

5. Do you go through oscillating wars taking a few cities at a time or do you go for broke? Does this differ from early to late game?

Oscillate early (ancient) if map allows, kill later (late medieval).

6. Obviously, your ability to decimate another civilization depends largely on your ability to avoid revolts in the cities you have just taken. When you're pushing deep into another civ's territory, how many troops do you devote to garrisons in the rear of your offensive? How does that number change as the game goes on?

Well, under feudalism or communism I find that a few pop rushes take care of allot of this problem...If the city was large when I took it, I'll even throw in a draft.

Only leave enough for MP purposes after resistance. Taking/razing the next city is typically the best prevention for flipping.

7. Do you care what other civs think of you? For a long-time I subscribed to the go-it-alone philosophy but in my most recent game I really took the sting out of an AI offensive by bribing an enemy in their rear into an alliance. They never really recovered. Do you foster the good relationships over time or do you just wait till you need them and pay the full price then?

Early, or in a weak position I MIGHT care. Otherwise, hell with them.

8. What traits have the biggest impact? I'm growing fond of agricultural and have always loved religious and industrious. I saw a few people mention commercial in another thread but I can't really wrap my head around it. I suppose the lower corruption gives you a higher ceiling, but without the productivity advantages you get from some of the other traits you seem less likely to realize that ceiling.

Yeah, Agri, Seafaring, Religious, and industrial are the favorites. I avoid Agri at all costs, and try not to pair any of the others. Feels too much like cheating. I'll let one of the corruption freaks explain commercial.

9. Do you stick with a particular government in most games or do you switch back and forth? Do you stay at peace long enough to make a conversion to democracy/republic worthwhile? Do you try to fight short wars in a democracy/republic and end them quick to avoid the weariness? Or do you stick with the war governments? I've always opted for communism in the mid-late game to keep my border cities from being useless. Is there a better way to wage your conquests?

Republic and Democracy are tools for the builderers. My preferred style of game goes Despot -> Feudalism -> Communism/Fascism. No switches needed. Feudalism has WW, but it also mocks it by allowing MP's.

"better"? Well, numerically republic and Democrazy are most likely better if you can keep the wars short, which really shouldn't be an issue.

[vmxa1]

Re: Taking my Game to the Next Level

QuestGAV :

1. I tend to want to be able to reach them soon with troops. So it will be after they have towns near me, if not islands map.

2. I build baracks in my troop pumps. I do it right after they are founded.

3. No, it depends on the level and map.

4. It is situational.

5. I will either war till they have had enough and it makes sense to stop or they are gone. It does not matter about the time as much as the maps settings. Is it dom or conquest only or not.

6. This is changing for me. I used to like to drop armies and units to pacifiy a city. Now I prefer to raze it and make a new one.
The lower the level the more you can think about capturing.
Use a flip calc if you are not sure of what it takes.

7. I have no interest in what they think and will hardly talk to them after the middle ages start, but that is just me. They are going to hate me anyway at moist levels as I am on top. At the highest levels, they hate me because I am weaker than them as will not give them what they want.

8. I do not care for Rel and rarely use Ag other than at Sid. I like commercial a lot and even the weakened Industrial trait.
Commerce starts with Alphabet, enough said. It also gives commerce and you can't get enough of that.

9. It depends, but mostly I will make only once switch. If it is a huge map and it is conquest only, then I may make a second. Remember I do not use Rel.
I never use Dem or at least I can't recall using.
I fight long wars often in Rep and have no real issues with WW. It can be managed. The lower the level, the easier it is to handle.
If I am in a game that I will have a large enough empire to use communism, I won't care about corruption. My core can handle everything. The rest are just to allow unit support. I often stick with a no WW government.

[joncnunn]

1. Between the two times you mentioned if I have poor quality terriaign.

2. At least one, yup. And the units being used for the war will be vetran

3. I'm a big propoenant of a Granery in your capital as your first improvement (helped along by forest chop) and also making Graneries a high priority on nearby cities with free aquaducts.
If Religious, I'd add Temples to the list as well, but if non-relgious, Temples is one of those improvements that should wait for those planning horse rushing / swords rushing. Even for a peaceful player, a tighter city spacement can greatly reduce the need for Temples for expanions.

Libaries: If Scientific, upon discovery of Literature. It becomes the cultural expanion building for them. For non-Scientific, it's somewhat later, but not much if your not involved in wars.

Marketplaces: If peaceful and not at war, should be built very quickly after you have access to 3+ luxaries in the core.

Courthouses: Varies on city, depends mostly upon current corruption level.

4. High mobility works better against the AI.

5. Whatever I can take that won't drag down into a war of attrition. The momemnt it starts to do so, I'd declare peace, exacting the most the AI will give.

6. In the middle of the war I often leave only 1 unit in the rear of the offenesive city. If it flips, so what! The reinforcements coming up will quickly take it back. I couple this with massive starvation of the conquered provinces when my oppoent has more culture.

7. I don't go out of my way to either help or hurt my relationship with the AIs. If they have a luxary I want, I'll trade for it. If I need a RoP, I'll ask for one. If I have a luxary they both want and can afford, I'll sell it.

8. Agricultural is over the top in Conquests. Industrious used to be so before being cut to a solid pick in Conquests. Commericial / Scientific / Religious are all about even. Seafaring & Expansionistic traights are also very good when properly used. Seafaring is in fact a very popular choice for MP games.

9 A. Switching back and forth is a bad idea for non-religious civs. They really should be only one of Republic / Fedualism / Monarchy. Make your choice and live with it. The general consenious is that under both stock and the AU mod rules is that switching from Republic to Democracy isn't worth it for non religious players. Leaving Democracy mostly for both Religious players and those that were under Monarchy or Fedualism who have now decided that dispite their large empire due to their exntenstive early war mongoling they really want to win via space race / empire wide culture. Similarly, a non religious player switching to either Communism or Fasicsm should stay in that govt the rest of the game and try to win via domination as soon as possible.

B. Fighting wars in Democracy while avoiding the WW issues is easy with proper WW avoidance tactics which are:
1. Do not get involved in a war of attrition.
2. Kill as many units as possible inside your cultural boundary. (Including your new cultural boundary )

Under Republic and Fedualism it's even easier, under these govts WW will evenually hit a plateu and stop increasing. Plus these govts will never collapse from WW.

C. I consider Fedualism a war govt for it's unit supports when the core doesn't have much aquaducts. In the latest AU challenge my one govt change was from Depotism to Fedulaism.

D. It depends upon what your after conquering. If your after winning the game via domination, yes, switch to communism, build the SPHQ, then only CH, PS, and Baracks, and then lots of military units and win. If your after a more limited goal and are really intending to win via a peaceful means, stay under your representive govt during the war.

[Theseus]

Good answers from three experienced vets.

Let me go at it a different way: What do you think is *NOT* optimal about how you are playing?

[QuestGAV]

Thanks for all the tips, though I think for the most part they confirm what I was doing, short of going to war too late.

Which brings me to Theseus' question, which I'd answer by saying that I feel like I start too slow and I end up using a huge city base to come back. I think where I'm bogging down is wanting to fill in extra city sites before I start cranking out units. I also think I"m relying too much on Temples. I'm going to cut them out of my early game and focus more on a few granaries & barracks in the core and leave the peripheral cities to fill in the gaps.

I definitely don't do much govt switching when not playing a religious civ, the penalty is just too huge. When I'm religious I do maybe 3-4 switches the whole game (usually despotism -> monarchy -> republic/democracy -> communism when it's time to wrap things up). Do you guys advocate skipping monarchy and heading for either feudalism or republic? It seems to be what you said but it'd be a whole paradigm shift for me as I've always rushed to monarchy after either horses/iron.

Also, where does worker creation fit into your early-game routine? If your settlers are having to pass through cities without roads to them is that a sign I need to mix in a few more workers or do you take the city spots first and mix the workers in later?

What sort of force do you put together prior to declaring war? I realize it's a very subjective question and the answer is very situational. I guess what I'm trying to ask is that do you build up a huge offensive force beforehand and try to steamroll them or declare war with what you have and rely on production that comes during the war?

[vmxa1]

I like your style Uno. To hell with them. LoL

Another thing about commerce to me is Iroq and France. Iroq is a great deity or sid civ and France is great for others. The reason I like france is that you can avoid the wonder GA without much effort. Get alpha to start and have improved workers. The UU is not needed until you want it to be, if at all.

The reason I like Iroq for sid is the UU is early to deal with those nasty sid barbs and can be avoided against the AI. You start with Alpha and get a boost in OCN.

[Jon Shafer]

The most important factor in moving up difficulty levels is getting a handle on the economic system. The rest is all personal preference. Want to win peacefully? With 2x the GNP and MFG of the other civs you'll build the spaceship before another civ gets to the Modern Era. Want to conquer the world? Same situation you'll have 2x the army of all your neighbors.

The biggest factors in economic growth is building cities close, setting up Settler/Worker pumps (with Granaries) and getting a lot of Workers built. For more details on those things check out my "Case For Food" article in my signature.

[vmxa1]

My .02 on Monarchy is to not research it, if you are not going to stay in it for decent amount of time.

Rep comes in the same era as Monarchy, so I would pick one. Picking Monarchy is to decide to be a warmonger IMO. So if that is not your plan, skip it. You won't get the HG, but so what?

To wait for Feudalism is a long time, I would not be in favor of that. If you are able to research it first without either of the other two forms of government, you need to move up a level or two.
IOW being in despotism and still out researching all the AI's means the game is too easy for you.

[joncnunn]

A lot depends upon the situation on war. I've played some games where I didn't go to war a single time. (Space ship) In these cases, by the end of REX I had either a very high quality land [somewhat small, the massive amount of rivers made up for it] , or more typicaly somewhat more than my fair share of good land. (Agressive REXing)

Emperor level and above will usally involve falling behind the AI initally but catching up later, the main difference as level increases is it takes even longer to catch up. Plus less margin for mistakes.

Republic is for when you are planning to be basically peaceful in early middle ages. (By middle of the middle ages, Republic should have enough aquaducts and Market Places up to start supporting war mongolging.) In Vanilla, it usually took until a couple of techs into the middle age for Republic to be viable. Under stock Conquests rules it's fresh water dependant. If you start in a river valley, it can be beelined to. Without fresh water though, it's going to be a long while waiting for a combo of Market Places and Aquaducts. (Not quite as long for Agricultrual civs) Under current AU mod, it can be switched to earlier than in stock.

Between Monarchy and Fedualism both are for when your planning extenstive wars, the former is prefered when you have a bunch of natural aquaducts in your core, and the later prefered when you don't.

Agricutural civs should probably be avoiding Fedualism because they are canceling out Agricultural's main strength if they aren't building Aquaducts.

A lot of players advocate forming worker factories. Get a city up to 5 fpt & 10 spt and produce a worker every single turn. (With a granery and also size 6 or smaller)

Myself though, I let the new cities build their own workers, usally as their first or second build. (Depends upon the shield vs food situation.)

I want one stack big enough to take a city or two with no serious trouble. If the AI is still REXing, it doesn't need to be particularly big. Most cities will be producing additional military units. Post AI-REX, the number of units you need will increase. I'm not about to give the AI advance warning, I won't declare war until my forces are ready to cross the border the same turn.

Originally posted by QuestGAV
Thanks for all the tips, though I think for the most part they confirm what I was doing, short of going to war too late.

Which brings me to Theseus' question, which I'd answer by saying that I feel like I start too slow and I end up using a huge city base to come back. I think where I'm bogging down is wanting to fill in extra city sites before I start cranking out units. I also think I"m relying too much on Temples. I'm going to cut them out of my early game and focus more on a few granaries & barracks in the core and leave the peripheral cities to fill in the gaps.

I definitely don't do much govt switching when not playing a religious civ, the penalty is just too huge. When I'm religious I do maybe 3-4 switches the whole game (usually despotism -> monarchy -> republic/democracy -> communism when it's time to wrap things up). Do you guys advocate skipping monarchy and heading for either feudalism or republic? It seems to be what you said but it'd be a whole paradigm shift for me as I've always rushed to monarchy after either horses/iron.

Also, where does worker creation fit into your early-game routine? If your settlers are having to pass through cities without roads to them is that a sign I need to mix in a few more workers or do you take the city spots first and mix the workers in later?

What sort of force do you put together prior to declaring war? I realize it's a very subjective question and the answer is very situational. I guess what I'm trying to ask is that do you build up a huge offensive force beforehand and try to steamroll them or declare war with what you have and rely on production that comes during the war?

[joncnunn]

Monarchy may be worth researching even if not planning on switching to it if your planning on building the Hanging Gardens. The AI charges an arm and a leg for govt techs.

It's actually not all that long a wait for Fedualism, if your bypasing all the optimal techs, especally in the AU mod which features one less required tech. Research or trade for the other required techs before you finish reseraching Philosphacy 1st in the world and you can even pick Fedualism as your free tech. This is also easier to do in the AU mod than stock because the AI science preferences are more spread out.

I won a domination victory in 590 AD with the AU Mod, largely thanks to direct Despotism to Fedualism. (And lots of wars)

Originally posted by vmxa1
My .02 on Monarchy is to not research it, if you are not going to stay in it for decent amount of time.

Rep comes in the same era as Monarchy, so I would pick one. Picking Monarchy is to decide to be a warmonger IMO. So if that is not your plan, skip it. You won't get the HG, but so what?

To wait for Feudalism is a long time, I would not be in favor of that. If you are able to research it first without either of the other two forms of government, you need to move up a level or two.
IOW being in despotism and still out researching all the AI's means the game is too easy for you.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by joncnunn


Between Monarchy and Fedualism both are for when your planning extenstive wars, the former is prefered when you have a bunch of natural aquaducts in your core, and the later prefered when you don't.

Agricutural civs should probably be avoiding Fedualism because they are canceling out Agricultural's main strength if they aren't building Aquaducts.

Some of us would disagree with that point on Feudalism, but it ends up a matter of extreme unusual style.

I've never understood the whole fascination with keeping cities under 7 for Feudalism, though. Let em grow! Border, hopelessly corrupt, and conquered towns will provide the unit support you need. You just got to keep feeding that Feudalism monster more (conquered, and pop rushed into submission/unitsupport) small cities to keep it going and let the core grow.

[Jon Shafer]

Personally I always go Despotism -> Republic. In Conquests you have to wait until you get 4-5+ cities over size 7 and a few Markets to switch so you don't drive yourself into the ground economically (it's very easy to make LESS money switching to Republic if you do so too early).

Even for warmongering Republic is fine, as long as you only conduct blitzkriegs and never get bogged down. But if you plan properly on the economics side, you should never be in that situation.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by QuestGAV
Thanks for all the tips, though I think for the most part they confirm what I was doing, short of going to war too late.

Which brings me to Theseus' question, which I'd answer by saying that I feel like I start too slow and I end up using a huge city base to come back. I think where I'm bogging down is wanting to fill in extra city sites before I start cranking out units. I also think I"m relying too much on Temples. I'm going to cut them out of my early game and focus more on a few granaries & barracks in the core and leave the peripheral cities to fill in the gaps.

Play AU 506...

I definitely don't do much govt switching when not playing a religious civ, the penalty is just too huge. When I'm religious I do maybe 3-4 switches the whole game (usually despotism -> monarchy -> republic/democracy -> communism when it's time to wrap things up). Do you guys advocate skipping monarchy and heading for either feudalism or republic? It seems to be what you said but it'd be a whole paradigm shift for me as I've always rushed to monarchy after either horses/iron.

I'd first try to get down to no more than two switches, even as REL. Don;t listen to what these guys are saying about "always republic" or "never demo"... the decision rests ENTIRELY on the strategy for a given game.

Also, where does worker creation fit into your early-game routine? If your settlers are having to pass through cities without roads to them is that a sign I need to mix in a few more workers or do you take the city spots first and mix the workers in later?

Emphasis added... that is *BAD*. BADBADBAD. If you are not getting roads up to your core cities, then you can't possibly be properly improving terrain, or connecting to resources, not to mention the time delay in your Settlers' wanderings.

What sort of force do you put together prior to declaring war? I realize it's a very subjective question and the answer is very situational. I guess what I'm trying to ask is that do you build up a huge offensive force beforehand and try to steamroll them or declare war with what you have and rely on production that comes during the war?

Again, read some of the AU 506 threads, and take a hand at it yourself.

Also, check the "Must Read" thread at the top of this forum, and pay particular attention to "Timeline for the ultra-early Archer rush" and "Ancient Era Warfare".

[QuestGAV]

The AU suggestion made way too much sense to me Theseus, though I decided to start with AU 101... which coincidentally also has a strong focus on early war.

I'm in position to win the game, it's about 1600 right now and I think I'll have won by 1700. While it's probably not nearly as early as many of you would have pulled it off I was able to integrate alot of this advice to solid effect. One concern I had is that the game was created during the vanilla Civ3 era... obviously there are some rules differences but from my recollection the biggest difference between vanilla and the expansions was a much more aggressive AI. I may not have this much luck at Emperor in C3C. I'll post over in the AU section about that.

I did go straight to Republic and it felt slow and I wasn't really in an economic position to make the switch. I stuck with it but I'm still battling budget problems. I think this is largely due to the lack of army support in Republic for vanilla Civ3. I was able to combat WW effectively though and I'm much more confident going forward that I can skip Monarchy and wage war in Republic.

Integrating more early workers obviously made a difference in getting settlers where they were going too. I think the most dramatic difference though was on conquered cities... having more workers let me get them connected quickly so that I could defend & reinforce them. I'm still not sure I'm making enough but I'm now convinced enough of their value to start making less settlers.

Skipping early temples made a big difference. The biggest roadblock was getting to astronomy so that I could find the other landmasses.

I'm now in the mid-game with massive production advantages where I'm alot more comfortable. My economy isn't where I'd like it to be but I'll chalk that up to the higher level.