Producing military units or settlers?

[Theseus]

I think it's an improvement. There is now a very meaningful additional reason to negotiate peace treaties. It's one of the reasons I disagree with the "continentals" (mmy term... the people who HAVE to gain unilateral control of their primary continent); this way you fight, negotiate peace and extort techs, but leave some AI cities nearby to do again in the future.

[Arrian]

Also consider your starting position. The smaller the map, the more crucial it is to have good land around your capitol. But it's important even on huge maps. Some people like playing out every start. I can understand that "ironman" philosophy, but I don't subsribe to it myself. I advocate restarting until you have a good starting spot. If you get really, really good at the game and want an extra challenge, then go ahead and take that all-jungle start.

You don't HAVE to warmonger, but there are advantages to it. First off, the chance for Great Leaders. Second, the ability to beat tech out of the AI while hoarding your money. Third, territorial expansion and gaining control of the resources in that territory. Fourth, weakening of the AI by ruining several AI civs - this takes them out of the tech trading system.

If you do decide to fight, there are two different schools of thought on civ choice:

1) Choose a civ with a powerful early UU, such as the Iroquois or Persians. Advantages: your units outclass the opposition in most cases, golden age during war. Disadvantages: golden age most likely wasted in despotism with few cities.

2) Choose a militaristic civ, like Japan or Germany. Advantages: militarism increases chances of unit promotion to elite, which means more chances for Great Leaders...cheap barracks help jump-start early military buildup...Disadvantages: unit parity at best, may even be outclassed early on... militaristic is only useful if you're fighting - it's a useless trait during peacetime, so make the wars count.

I've beaten this to death in the strategy forum, but Japan makes a great warmonger civ, particularly if you like the "mongol horde" approach to conquest. Persian Immortals are slow, but will cut through spearmen like a knife through butter. Mounted Warriors are fast and powerful. They are the single most powerful UU in the game.

It's all about priorities. I fight for GL's, a second core area (forbidden palace and environs), and tech parity. I also do not like sacrificing my golden age to ancient despotism. I want my GA during the Middle Ages, where I build all the stuff I neglected in ancient times and then some. Not to mention those juicy Medieval Wonders.

If you go the warmonger route, I suggest ignoring the landgrab for the most part. Just make sure you have a good core of productive cities, and access to horses and iron. Then take the rest.

-Arrian

"If you're going to fight, clash!" - Robin Williams, Goodmorning, Vietnam

[The Eliminator]

Playing on continents - huge map, I take my chances and make nothing but settlers and warriors until about 1000BC, then I make spearmen and start on wonders, while still making as many settlers as possible in my outer rim territories. Then I go after the weakest or best placed neighbour.

[Lucilla]

Lots of good ideas here. Thanks!

I prefer using fast UUs like the Jaguar Warrior or Impi, which gives fast exploration in the beginning. But I agree with Arrian that this might trigger a too early Golden Age. Samurai and Rider are later, so that's maybe the right direction for me to go.

These two also have the advantage that they become available with chivalry, that the AI doesn't seem to research often, so I'm most of the times the first one to have it.