Helpfull Hints

[Civ_4]

I find that making alot of workers and irrigateing, mining/or roading all of the spuares in and a little bit around your area to be very helpful.

For one is increase production, food, gold and movement of all units in the area. I think it can help if you have a negative income to even it out rather than disbanding one of your units. Also when it get to past railroads a worker is not too much use, I don't think other than with new citys.

[Kloreep]

Yes, you should definitely aim to road & mine/irrigate every square you intend to work.

Workers' usefulness don't quite end once you railroad your civ. They're still going to be needed for pollution cleanup once you get factories, coal plants, and hospitals. Otherwise you'll start losing tiles to pollution. That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. Joining them to cities that have built hospitals can be a good use, since growing size 13+ cities via food can be a costly endeavor.

[Aabraxan]

Originally posted by Kloreep
. . . . That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. . . .

Bearing in mind, of course, that slaves are free.

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Yes, you should definitely aim to road & mine/irrigate every square you intend to work.

Workers' usefulness don't quite end once you railroad your civ. They're still going to be needed for pollution cleanup once you get factories, coal plants, and hospitals. Otherwise you'll start losing tiles to pollution. That said, depending on how large a force you had for the railroading, you might want to shed some of them to reduce maintenance. Joining them to cities that have built hospitals can be a good use, since growing size 13+ cities via food can be a costly endeavor.

Once you get flight you can also use workers to make airfields and Radar Towers (Advanced flight) or to make fortifications (very useful in the infantry/artillery era and holding onto a resource colony)

[Civ_4]

From Play one of my other save I've notice that if you do not have knights and you are at war with another civ and you build swordsman and archers they can be very help full in combating those Knights.

Spearmen were help full to a decree but I rather like working with swordsmen than the other. Not that I'm saying spearmen are not useful, in alot of cases they can be of help like protecting your citys or a many of other things.

Now horsemen were of better help but not too much. For me I like to have at least some difference of units in attacking the another civ but I don't do it offten because I stink at it.

I'm just now experimenting with attacking the enemy.

[BlackCat]

If they have knights and you have horsemens, then I think that you have a research problem that needs to be taken care of.

A 2.1.2 horseman isn't good to send against a 4.3.2 Knight unless it's down to one remaining hitpoint.

I'm a chicken so I wait for a while before starting wars. First when I have at least three army groups consisting of 6 artys, 10 attackers and four defenders/occupation units, I start.

It might seem to be an awfull lot of units, but I have a couple of reasons to wait so long :

* don't attack before there is a reasonable chance to beat the opponent.
* when attacking with archers and swordsmen you are sure to loose units and have other severely damaged. You don't want to hold back your invasion while you wait for replacements/repair.
* attacking several places diverts the enemys forces and reduces their production capacity fast.
* it reduces their cultural influence and that makes it easier to go for the next targets.
* it gives the opponent time to build roads so your armies can move faster in your newly conquered land.
* it gives the opponent time to reach monarcy/republic and have cities having cultural growth. This might not make much sense, and if you just razes the newly conquered cities, it doesn't matter. If you want to keep them, you don't want them to hurry production by sacrificing citicens. The point is that a city you take will at least loose 1 citizen, so if there are only one, then the city will be destroyed. Though, if it has had a culture pop, it will survive even with one.

The exception to the above is if there are other civs in the neighbourhood - then I build at least 15 archers. It may too seem like a lot, but it can easily cost 2-3 archers to knock out a single spearman (but that is probably not news for you ).

Well, that's my two cents - hope it makes sense (and not being shot down too hard by the experts )

[Kloreep]

War timing is largely dependent on style - though the wrong style can be treated harshly in a particular situation. When it comes down to it, you can succeed with warmongering or without. (Though it gets harder to go without as you go up levels... at some point you at least have to claim yourself a large enough empire for your civ to have all the cities that it can maintain at a reasonable corruption level.)

Don't knock ancient warfare, though. It can be done; and a mix of spears, swords, horsemen and catapults can be turned into a very successful ancient era campaign. (If you "rush" an enemy - attacking very early - even Archers can be used to an advantage.) Warring early can mean a lot of time to sit back in peace later in the game; if you eliminate a neighbor, you can greatly increase your territory, and decrease the need to fight later on. Of course, waiting means more time to build up your civ, which means you can ultimately field a better army...

Each wave of units that arrives in the tech tree usually offers ways for you to fight a good campaign. You generally have your Attacker, your Defender, and your Bombarder. In the Medieval Era you get an interesting choice between two different attackers; both are useful, but you'll probably want at least some Knights, since they're just so strong at everything. Pikemen & Longbowmen can be used in concert wherever you can afford to forgo the Knight's speed.

About the only time I'd say that attacking can't be done very well is when Infantry arrive in the Industrial; it becomes very hard to win on the attack. Before that, Riflemen end Cavalry's Golden Age runnig down Musketmen, but it is still possible to take Riflemen out with Cavalry - you're just faced with a greater need to use Cannons to soften them up. Of course, I'm sure someone will now reply that with the proper application of Cavalry or Infantry armies, you can fight successful wars mid-Industrial. And of course, if you reach Infantry before your opponent rather than alongside/after, you'll have a major advantange and can definitely go nuts with 'em. No one will be able to get to your Cavalry if you cover them with Infantry.

Ultimately, it's up to when you're ready to commit. You'll probably find the biggest success building big Stacks of Doom like Black Cat suggests. You want to have plenty of defenders covering your attackers & bombarders. (This applies even if your standard defense unit is no better than your standard attack unit, because defenders are cheaper. Spears and Swords both have 2 defense, but the spearman only costs 20 shields vs. 30 for the sword, so use them to cover your swords so that your valuable 3-attack swords can't be damaged or killed on the attack. Ditto even more so 30 shields for a Pikeman vs. the whopping 70 for a Knight!) Having devoted defending units gives you bombardment units much-needed protection, and keeps your attackers safe and fresh for when you're ready to go on the offensive.

Once you have your Stack of Doom, find the quickest/safest route to your target city and attack. Chances are the enemy units will be dug in and may even have better odds in a straight, even-HP fight; that's why you need bombarders to better your odds.

[BlackCat]

"Stacks of Doom" - well, that is actually a precise description. I admit that it took me a while to adabt to this - I started with SMAX and there such stacks is a very big nono.

I forgot to mention an important issue - your fleet. It of course depends on your environment, but if you have acces to water, then your fleet will be crucial to your war(mongering).

A fleet, or rather several fleets, is nessecary if there is much water. One thing is that they make you able to hit on long distance in an invasion - another thing is that you can hit way above the actual front - f.ex. to attack the city that controls your enemys iron source.

A little trick - you can save several turns on your army movement by let your armies load into a fleet in a city because they stil have the ability to unload after fleet movement - Especially the Scandinavs can do nasty things early. If you have the Beserks, well

Edit: the las trick of course demands that you landed the army on a roaded tile.

[Civ_4]

Wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My thoughts on Wealth

First of all I'm a beginner so bare with me.

I've played a decent amout of civ games to know that for me wealth is a good thing. On alot of the games I find myself having no money because I either have too many units or city's are producing too many improvements. I've also seen that alot of people think that wealth is some what of a waste of time or you could be producing something better but for me sence I'am a beginner It's is a help.

I think one of the reasons is I never have money in the beginning years in connection to wealth is because I like to be researching something, manking gold and improving my citys at the same time. I tried not producing wealth it did not work because I was having hard time knowing just what to build. Also it is just one way I can get gold.

P.S I rate getting techs fast as a high priority because you can get more powerful units, and better things to help you to produce.

One last things I don't really have a set strategy or I just go into the game kinda with out thinking or just to learn how to do things and/or learn more about the game.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vmxa1]

If you are putting towns on wealth prior to late industrial, you are doing something wrong for the most part.

[Aabraxan]

Expansion and having more towns will generate more income than setting some to wealth will. If you expand fast & large enough, the totally corrupt cities can become specialist farms. In those areas, irrigate everything and support as many specialists as you can. Use whichever specialists you need at the moment to achieve your goals.

Originally posted by Civ_4 On alot of the games I find myself having no money because I either have too many units or city's are producing too many improvements.

Then you've already identified the problem. If you have too many improvements, well, you shouldn't have built them in the first place. Instead, you should have built units. Generally, units are a better investment. If you have too many units, go take some territory. Then put down more towns.

Originally posted by Civ_4 I've also seen that alot of people think that wealth is some what of a waste of time or you could be producing something better but for me sence I'am a beginner It's is a help.

Wealth isn't a complete waste of time, but it's close. As vmxa1 pointed out, you should be long into the game before you're building it.

Originally posted by Civ_4 I think one of the reasons is I never have money in the beginning years in connection to wealth is because I like to be researching something, manking gold and improving my citys at the same time. I tried not producing wealth it did not work because I was having hard time knowing just what to build. Also it is just one way I can get gold.

P.S I rate getting techs fast as a high priority because you can get more powerful units, and better things to help you to produce.

If you expand rapidly in the early game, you can plant enough towns that you don't need to produce wealth to stay afloat (economically).

Don't build improvements just because you can. For example, I rarely build temples. I only build them when flips are a risk, or there's a resource nearby that I could not claim otherwise. At 60 shields (is that right?), that's 3 horsemen that I could have built. Multiply that across just 5 towns and we're talking about 15 horsemen! At my difficulty level (Monarch), that's enough to wreck an AI.

Think of your empire as being divided into 3 areas: (1) the core; (2) the semi-core; and (3) the hinterlands. Generally, the core gets the most improvements of the 3 areas (though not necessarily most of the available improvements). The semi core gets somewhat fewer improvements, depending on what's justifiable. The hinterlands get lots of irrigation and specialists -- no improvements.

Originally posted by Civ_4 One last things I don't really have a set strategy or I just go into the game kinda with out thinking or just to learn how to do things and/or learn more about the game.

Then find a strategy. Pick one victory condition and shoot for it. One of the pieces of advice that I was given when I first started was that I should play a game and do the following: (1) Do not build any Great Wonders. (2) For improvements, build only barracks. (3) Then build only settlers, workers and military units.

I played a game like that and was surprised at how fast a conquest victory can progress under those rules.

[BlackCat]

@Civ_4 : I'm a bit confused by your claim of being hogged up in unit and maintenance early in the game.

I do build 3-4 warriors as the first for scouting and hut popping, but unless I find opponents close, I don't build anything else than warrior/settlers until saturation and a worker in every new city.

Shortly (using scandi as example) :

Main base pops 3-4 scouts. Reseach pottery. When scouts are finished so should potterry, so build granery - then 3-4 pairs of warrior/settlers. When they are finished, you have a core of at least four bases. While building those you have at least researched BW and CB - maybe popped some from huts, so now you prepare Trondheim for wonder building by making two warriors and a temple. After that, well, build wonders.

What to do in other cities highly depends on what you scouts find. If you are alone, well, new warrior/settlers are the recipe until saturation. If not, dedicate two for war by building Baracks and archers, and the others for warriors/settlers.

No matter what a new base is supposed for, start with a worker and if it's a settlerbuilder, a granery. Chop wood for hurry if available. (note: if the base can't grow quickly enough to build a worker, then build a warrior or a currach - the first can escort a settler, the latter scout).

I'm a bit curious about your problems, so could I persuade you to try the attached start and post a save when you run out of money (yeah, I HAVE upgraded so it's a 1.22 ) ?

Btw. talking about scandinavs, here are a bit that may be a little off topic, but we are going against Belfast yet again

http://www.havhingsten.dk/index.php?id=277&L=1

[Civ_4]

Sorry Blackcat I do not have Conguest yet!
I only have the Civ 3 Jewel Case "no expansion" and Civ 3 Golden edition.

So if you want me to try a save of yours than please post a save for the Regular Civ 3 or the Civ 3 with PTW.

Thank You.

[BlackCat]

on me - at some time C3C q/a's was introduced and I assumed ....

Instead of me messing things up, could you post a game of yours where you are running out of money and if possible the start ?

[Civ_4]

Here is a save that I recently have played. I'm having a little of a hard time but not to much. This save is the only one I have played that is the closest to the beginning.

P.S. I've figured out some more good tricks and maybe I need alot more help on money on this save than I think.