Why I hate the early game...

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, I was reared on Scenarios from Civilization II, so I've always been the guy that likes playing with his big armies with his artillery and sometimes planes, tanks, and warships, etc. I have never been an early game conqueror. It stinks too because I know that often times its important to get that edge in those first years too.

For example, I was playing a game as the Americans. I started out on this continent with the Aztecs. I got into two wars with them before the BCs were over. In the first, I managed to wipe out one city and hold their forces at bay while throwing away a dozen swordsmen and archers or so on the fruitless campaign. Then in the next war, I was entirely subdued as they moved in hordes of swordsmen, archers, spearmen, jaguar warriors, etc. Now, when the AI proves a better leader than you... you start to worry.

I always spend my early game enriching my cities and lands, so I need a lesson in early game conquest. What do you other players find most effective in the dawn of man?

[Zachriel]

Jaguar Warriors

Try playing the Aztecs on a crowded map, just for fun. Build Jaguar Warriors and rush before your neighbors get Bronze Working for Spearmen. I just took out Rome in 3000bc on Monarch level. Now I can expand and build at my leisure.

[Ironikinit]

1. Explore in lines away from your home city. You want your explorer to get as far as he can. Don't circle back looking for good city sites or goody huts. You'll only build your cities close to the capital anyway.

2. Look to get iron working right away. I'm not saying max out your research, just get after iron working. Finding iron and getting a city next to it is key.

3. Drop the Americans. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but the Americans are not a strong early game civ. The AI does OK with them, but I've yet to find much of a use for jet fighters beyond defending against bombers and recon. Do you see many bombers in 3000 BC? Try a civ that has an earlier unique unit. Might I suggest the Persians, Rome, or Iroquois? All have strong early units.

4. If you get behind on cities or army size, you might try rush building military units. Note: rushing under despotism causes you to lose population, and can cause fairly serious attitude problems down the road.

5. Trade techs with all your neighbors. Don't sweat if you fall behind, just make sure you're not broke. So long as you get the basics of horseback riding, iron working, and mathematics, you've got your ancient army covered. Iron working is a good one to trade, so don't just give it away.

6. Expand. You want a good core of cities around your capital. Ideally, you should be able to build 6 cities around it at no more distance than 5 squares (in practice, the ocean usually prevents this). There will be some overlap, but no more than one square per outer city. Get those core cities down, and then maybe you can get another ring started, depends on your options.

7. Sooner or later, somebody will declare war. If they ask for a bribe first, you might pay them, but an early war is a big boon if you work it right. Take enough force for the job. Against smaller enemy cities, 2 swordsmen and a horseman might do the trick. Attack first with your horseman, he either wins, loses, or retreats, and then attack with swordsmen as needed. Against a capital, 2 or 3 horse and 3 swordmen (more if you're facing Greeks, try doubling it). Catapults are handy on offence and defence, but not required. You can send out a few warriors, archers, or even workers as scouts, but mainly you want one big stack of units. Early in the game you won't get much culture reversion (cities "flipping" back to the old owner).

8. Adjust the map settings until you find something you like. I wanted to try a huge map, for instance, but I was worried about all the delay. I tried huge with small continents and got rid of a couple of civs to make up for the lower land mass. Turned out pretty cool, really. Don't be afraid to restart if you don't like your start. Once you find a start you do like, if you mess it up, don't be afraid to start over by going to the autosave and loading the 4000 BC game. That might make it a little too easy, but good maps can be hard to find, and one false move can spell doom. No kidding. One bad war and you lose, or at least have to scramble to come back.

Let me know how it goes. At least let me know what parts didn't make sense or didn't work. Adios.

[Dom Pedro II]

I can already see why my results are so much different.

In most games, I make a mad dash for Literature to get the Great Library. I suppose I could trade for that then. Normally, I build the Great Library to keep it from getting into my enemy's hands more than anything else.

Secondly, my most preferable kind of map is a map with many islands. While its great if your fortunate enough to end up on a nice cozy private island, ending up on island with one, two, or even three OTHER civilizations stinks for somebody who is not aggressive in the early game.

And yes, the Americans. I usually never play as them in the early game. I only used them because I was demonstrating the brand-new Civilization III to my uncle, a veteran of Civilization I. What a demonstration... all I did was show how the AI CAN beat the human player these days. And he being new to the game said "Get rid of the Aztecs." Well, surprise surprise...

Anyway, in terms of exploration, I usually explore as fast and as far as I can. I particularly do that when I play with an Expansionist civilization. Sometimes I haven't got the explorer to spare.

Usually, I will build a city, put a warrior in the city, and then build a settler. My problem is what to do after that. I mean, should I begin on improvements, or start with military units right away so I can go to war. I just don't know.

But for example, I was playing in one game as the Germans, and the son of a b**** Egyptians signed a Rights of Passage treaty with me, moved their archers and warriors into my territory, declared war, and captured four cities in a single turn. That right there was an example of bad military planning on my part. Most of my cities had only warriors defending them and there were no horseman or other offensive units to go on the attack. Of course, had I been playing to conquer my enemies as fast as possible, I would've been much better off.

That combat information is definitely helpful. Of course, there are variables to take into account. Sometimes a guaranteed victory can turn into a Waterloo. I think I'll play on the safe side with the size of my armies.

Thanks alot.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ironikinit

3. Drop the Americans. I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but the Americans are not a strong early game civ. The AI does OK with them, but I've yet to find much of a use for jet fighters beyond defending against bombers and recon. Do you see many bombers in 3000 BC? Try a civ that has an earlier unique unit. Might I suggest the Persians, Rome, or Iroquois? All have strong early units.

As an expansionist civ, playing American can be a real advantage in the early game, especially if you have a huge map. That's what I usually play and I find quite often that I'm way ahead of the other civs with tech and money because of the goody huts. Eventually they do catch up, but it can give you a good head start.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II


Usually, I will build a city, put a warrior in the city, and then build a settler. My problem is what to do after that. I mean, should I begin on improvements, or start with military units right away so I can go to war. I just don't know.

A policy that I've been using which usually works out for me is for every city you build create 2 settlers, 2 workers and a Temple before you really start developing it or produce military units. Aside from a few defensive units.

[Ironikinit]

I build 2 warriors at first. 1 for exploration, one to keep order in the city. On emperor level, the city goes into disorder soon as it hits population 2, but I find that I'm better off sending out the first warrior as an explorer anyway. I just have to catch the city before it goes into disorder and adjust production. Then I build the settler. This might not be a great start as I tend to fall behind the AI civs in the early game. I don't build workers for a while.

About the Americans, Willem. While expansionist is fine and all, esp. on a huge map, their UU certainly won't be much help to someone having trouble early in the game. I mistakenly thought Dom was a newbie and was playing the yanks all the time cos he's American himself. I've noticed several people preferring one civ or another because they identify with it regardless of whether or not it was good for their game play.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ironikinit


About the Americans, Willem. While expansionist is fine and all, esp. on a huge map, their UU certainly won't be much help to someone having trouble early in the game. I mistakenly thought Dom was a newbie and was playing the yanks all the time cos he's American himself. I've noticed several people preferring one civ or another because they identify with it regardless of whether or not it was good for their game play.

Well that's the main reason I play American actually. In all the Civ games I've always picked one civ, and just keep playing them. In Civ 1 it was the Aztecs; I liked the music. One reason I settled on American is that I'm more familiar with their city names, when I finally get around to adding a few more. I'd play Canadian, but I don't want to bother rewriting all the cities. Besides I don't think we have enough city names for the size of Empire I want to build.

But I have no complaints with American. By the time I hit the Middle Ages, I usually have a pretty good lead on tech. And it's certainly an advantage being able to build Scouts, they're a good unit to have at the first, especially if you have half a dozen or so running around the map.