Monarch vs. Emperor

[Txurce]

I've been playing at the popular Monarch level - standard everything, space race - but my last two games in particular have made me wonder about moving on to Emperor.

I first played the Aztecs to test their early warmongering ability on 1.17, started in a central location, and steadily destroyed the Egyptians (JW's), Americans (knights) and Iroquois (cavalry) on my continent (maybe half the total land mass). I stayed close in tech through the Middle Ages, and pulled ahead in the Industrial Age, finally launching in 1840.

In my next game I used the Babylonians, starting at the bottom of a continent (1/3 total land mass) shared only with the centrally-located Persians. For the first time I kept my science bar at 10% and saved gold while conquering the Persians: three wars, all with my Bowmen. I then just about caught up in tech with my hoarded gold. After this I went builder as usual, fought not one war the rest of the game, and launched in 1820.

What I find disconcerting is that just about every strategy I try works, and what I don't do, doesn't matter. I don't despot-rush. I usually build only one wonder (happiness) until the industrial age. I have just about quit building ships, as workers are a free way to counter most naval-inflicted damage. I also all but ignore airpower, with a few exceptions. I leave many cities undefended, and no longer upgrade my early defenders, as my up-to-date contemporary units (ancient UU's, sometimes knights, cavalry, tanks) take care of any invaders. And of course, all my wars are basically rushes with the minimum number of those offensive units. They work well enough that I can't remember my last meaningful modern-era war.

It's like Civ 2, just simpler... but that's not my point. It's that I don't play particularly well, certainly don't micro-manage the way some players here do, and still win every game. (I've lost one war total: two cities my bowmen couldn't defend against elephants.) Monarch only forces me to struggle in the early- and mid-game, and then only if I had a very bad starting location. I'll probably try Domination, or devote myself for a while longer to launching a lot earlier than 1820, but this only reminds me that I'm playing against myself. Again, too much like Civ 2.

Which leads me to Emperor. I haven't played it because most threads indicate that the strategies involved are even more constricted than those for Monarch. Monarch may be too easy, but that allows me to play with slightly different strategies. My question is: do players find Emperor offers a similar number of strategies? And if not, does the challenge make up for it?

Thanks in advance for considering this.

[DaveV]

The AI is better than Civ II, but still needs a lot of help; Monarch handicaps aren't enough help against a good player. Emperor fits my play style well, and allows some variation in play style. As many people have noted, a really good start has a huge impact on the game (popping a settler out of your first hut is the equivalent of playing at the next lower difficulty level, IMO). I think you can fine-tune your difficulty level by playing out a poor start (for Monarch+) or a very good start (for Emperor-).

[Ethelred]

I don't see a lot of difference between Emperor and Monarch. The change has much easier than I expected. Much easier than adapting to Monarch was. So far I am getting less Wonders but I still get the ones I really want.

I am using religous civs for the first time though. I am going for Monarchy as well for the first time. I think will try going with the French again soon. I really don't like pretending to be religious.

I am still using a mostly builder strategy. Don't attack much till I get cavalry and again when tanks show. Anything I take before cavalry is because the AI was unable to back up its bullying.

I do pay a lot of extortion. Did that on Monarch as well.

I would say its time for you to move up.

[Dominae]

I've recently move up from Monarch to Emperor as well. The key to find challenging games is to accept any starting location (well, almost any ) and keep trudging along if things get tough. Yes, if you're lucky and get a few lucky breaks, even Emperor is a breeze.

I just finished a game as the Aztecs. Most of the civs were in a U-shaped continent, with mine at the top left. I rushed my neighbors the Americans, who conveniently finished The Pyramids a couple of turns before I finished them off. The next civ in line, the Babylonians, were equally gracious and allowed be to conquer the Sistine Chapel. During that war I also got a GL, which I used to rush my FP in the bottom right of the U. With all the advantages I actually got a tech lead in the late Middle Ages (around Chemistry). I then beelined for Oil (Refining, is it?), covered all of them with a stack of Infantry (there were only 4 sources that I didn't control), and rolled over the remaining opposition with my Tanks.

That game was pretty easy. However, I've also played a bunch of other Emperor games where I was catching up the entire time, and sweated through the Space Race. At numerous times I could have restarted (the only two Wonders I managed to build were Universal Suffrage and the UN), but sticking with it is what makes Emperor games fun. If you can beat any given game on Emperor, my hat is off to you. Myself, I find Emperor quite challenging 2 times out of 3.


Dominae

[Txurce]

DaveV, it's nice to hear from you. I assume you're no-culture/rushing your way to Domination victories, just like in Civ2.

You and Dominae both focused on starting position making all the difference: a good one on Emperor isn't much different from a bad one on Monarch. (I rarely restart either, so I know that swing very well.) If that's the degree of increased handicap, with the games being otherwise similar, then Emperor it is. Getting your butt kicked is good for the soul... as long as you start kicking some yourself before too long.

Ethelred, I am particularly encouraged that you can win on Emperor with a builder startegy. I will stick with religious civs for all the obvious reasons... but why are you now going for Monarchy? (I've always gone from Despotism to Republic, and then Democracy.)

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Txurce
Ethelred, I am particularly encouraged that you can win on Emperor with a builder startegy. I will stick with religious civs for all the obvious reasons... but why are you now going for Monarchy? (I've always gone from Despotism to Republic, and then Democracy.)

Well it isn't pure builder. I am willing to start a war if I have to. Well I don't actualy start it so much as instigate it by annoying my target. In my first win I had been planning to go to war with Greece for a long time because:
[list=a][*]They had half the continent and one of us had to go. I chose him.[*]My oil depleted and crossed the border to his side. Switching who had oil.[/list=a]

So I began to spy on Greece. I had to start espionage before he got ticked off enough.

As for Monarchy.

Well if you are religous you can change in one turn. Its really like half a turn. Start the revolution at the end of one turn and as soon as the cities are gone through by the Domestic Moron you get to choose a new government. So you don't even have one turn with your workers at half speed. You do lose one turn of production.

Its usually a bad idea for me to change to Republic till I have cathedrals or at least colliseums since you lose the military police. You also have to start paying for all your troops so if you don't have marketplaces it can be a bad idea to change to Republic.

I find that I can manage the change to Monarch much earlier. I still get some free troops and I not only still get military police I now can use THREE of them. Thats as good as a chappel. Monarch isn't as good for money as Republic so I switch as soon as I get enough chappels and marketplaces built.

No war weariness. Full production minus corruption. Less coruption than Despot. Three military police. Whats not to like?

Its not worth four to eight turns of anarchy but for one turn its a great deal. Saves me a lot of production that would be lost because I can switch to it earlier than I can to Republic.

If I am not religious I don't want the anarchy. I only make one change of goverment. I accept the loss of worker efficiency by not going to Democracy so I only have that one instance of anarchy when I switch from Despot to Republic. Eight turns is a lot with tech advancing as quickly as it can. The more cities you have the longer anarchy is so a switch to Democracy is liable to take longer than the first switch to Republic.

[Txurce]

Ethelred, I had forgotten about that "disorder thing" we had to deal with on Deity in Civ2. Isn't it interesting that it's almost a non-issue at Monarch? Every now and then I hit Republic and found myself going broke, but never bothered to figure out why, as I straightened out my economy quickly enough.

Presumably you go to Monarchy because the AI handicap on Emperor makes building improvements tougher than advancing up the tech tree. I had never bothered researching it before, even with a religious civ, because I didn't want to waste time on an optional advance. I like the idea of more interim steps... and since I'm usually religious, there's no downside.

Come to think of it, I've never built a coliseum, either. Guess I'll be starting soon enough.

[Shaka II]

I have settled into Emperor level for the past 20 games or so. It provides all the challenge I need, while most always allowing me a win. Usually space victory (I play with Diplomatic victory off), but most recent game I am coasting toward domination with 9 SS components built. The Chinese just had to attack me (Zulu), so I turned off my research for a while to crush them with my modern armor.

I think of myself as a 50/50 builder/warmonger. Don't use pop rushing or other exploits. However, recently I have been setting up a few worker/settler cities to speed development. I don't disband these, and later after they have served their purpose, I build them up like all the other cities (the builder in me). Just build a ton of workers and/or capture them and you will do fine. Establish a good road system early, and when Steam Power is discovered, you're worker army should boost your economomy to number one.

Micromanagement only to a point in early game with workers and battles, but after Ancient era, it is usually automatic workers and I generally don't fret over a few mistakes in battle. I do generally take the time to pummel the enemy cities with artillery, etc. (later game) and unit stacks before sending in my attack units. Catapults/Cannons don't seem to be worth the bother, especially since they have such poor sucess ratio.

My favorite builders in order: Babylonians, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, French.

Favorite warmongers in order: Zulu, Iroquois, Aztec.

Even builder games, I like to wipe out my nearest neighbor (if possible) early on to give me room (e.g., Babylonian bowmen rush), but I have played a few games where I still had a rather puny area to the end game. It can be quite a race for space victory under this condition.

Most games are come from behind and usually only get to build 3-6 wonders, often by using GLs. It is often better to just shut off science after the first critical Ancient era techs have been discovered. Buy everything else and concentrate on building roads, infrastructure, trade, defense. Then launch science mid way through middle ages depending on the game. After Steam Power you should reach parity or move ahead in science.

[Zachriel]

I've found that just packing your initial towns a little closer makes emperor play much like monarch in most other respects.

[Txurce]

Shaka, I see the value of creating roads and other infrastructure to maximize the point late in the game when you start to gain technologically on the AI. And I also try to play "reformed warmonger" - warrior-turned-builder - unless circumstances lead me to keep fighting.

I just played two games on Emperor, both with the Sioux. In the first, I was on an island with the Aztecs and Americans, fell hopelessly behind in cities, and the Aztecs attacked me immediately after wiping out the Americans. It was a hopeless situation, and I packed it in BC. In my second game, I had a good starting location, still fell behind in size, and had the misfortune of being completely in the way of the biggest power, the Egyptians. They had nowhere to go but through me, and we engaged in three wars. They won the first, I took five cities in the second, and then was losing the third badly enough to give up around 800 AD. My mistake was assuming they wouldn't get aggressive so soon after the second war, and switching my economy to infrastructure. If I had more knights, I could have held them off, and just possibly scratched my way to a space victory... but this assumes a lot, starting with trusting the AI to not be serious about the space race.

My immediate problem (other than underestimating AI aggressiveness) is clearly inadequate early expansion. Zachriel, you mentioned packing towns tighter, which to me means not wasting a couple of turns moving settlers to a traditionally more desirable spot. Is this correct? This wouldn't put me on a par with the AI, but it may give me a critical mass to survive and thrive.

That said, I'm wondering if the best way to achieve early growth is by fighting. I don't think I can produce more towns than the AI, but I like to believe that I can outsmart it militarily, even with a smaller economic base. This would lead me to my usual favorites, the Aztecs, Babylonians and Egyptians - I haven't tried the Zulu for some reason. All of these can build decent units cheaply and much sooner and reliably than even the Iroquois. (I found horses far from my capital. By the end of my successful war against Egypt, my MW's were encountering musketmen and knights.)

It seems to come down to foreign-made vs. home-grown, or a balance of the two.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Txurce
Zachriel, you mentioned packing towns tighter, which to me means not wasting a couple of turns moving settlers to a traditionally more desirable spot. Is this correct? This wouldn't put me on a par with the AI, but it may give me a critical mass to survive and thrive.

The main reason to pack the cities a little tighter is to get more production from a given region of the map. Each town only uses a few squares for most of the game, not exceeding twelve until the industrial age. Instead of having 5-10 cities on a standard map, on your "share" of the map, you can have 10-15 or even more.

In the extreme players will pack them with only one square in between. This gives a huge boost in early production, but seems like an exploit as the cities don't seem natural, but forced. I compromise by just packing them a little closer as I go up in levels.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Txurce
That said, I'm wondering if the best way to achieve early growth is by fighting. I don't think I can produce more towns than the AI, but I like to believe that I can outsmart it militarily, even with a smaller economic base.

This is precisely the strategy I use to get ahead on Emperor. I personally dislike packing cities too tight, so I can't just ICS my way to victory (I've never really tried it, so forgive my insinuation that ICS is "easy"). Early fightning really disrupts the AI's game plan: they'll stop expanding and try to destroy you, even with a poor economy. If you manage to make a lot of favorable trades in combat (1 Swordsmen for 2 Spearmen, for example), you'll gain advantage by pure attrition. The AI's only defense is to outproduce you. Once they stop doing that, you've won.


Dominae

[Shaka II]

You mean Iroqouis not Sioux? Oh well, American Indians in any case. Funny, I was humbled by the Aztec in more or less the same way (playing Iroquois), but in the middle ages when they had finished with the French and Russians (culture grouping off), their Knight army was a bit larger than mine. I started in a huge jungle.

If you want to learn to play the Zulu, Aeson has some great strategies (his favorite).

Regarding ICS, I think you can draw the line between how much of it to use. I have only tried having 2 worker/settler cities, but I could see how a full blown ICS strategy might make the game too easy (except maybe on Deity).

I couldn't believe my starting location in last Zulu game. Within view of my scout settler, and worker were 2 rivers, 3 wheat stacks (on other river), 1 cow, 1 deer, and a few spices. So, instantly a capital and 2 worker cities was a natural.

I don't think you can build only in Emperor, unless you are like a Solo, e.g. Reformed warmonger sounds good to me or perhaps warmongering builder?

[Txurce]

Zachriel, I see your point: even with less land due to the AI out-settling me, I can have a sufficient number of productive cities by giving them just a little less growing space. For this approach, it probably makes sense to head out as far as is feasible, then back-fill.

Dominae, I've been thinking about fighting more, due both to playing on Emperor and to Rpodos' current threads on the same subject. I won't repeat myself here, but your point about reversing the production tilt during a war is what fighting comes down to in Civ3. Given the human adaptive advantage, once you start to outnumber the AI on the field, it goes into what seems like a hibernating defensive mode, and its days are numbered. On Emperor, you would likely do this starting with an inferior position, which gets us back to having fun outsmarting the computer.

Shaka, I did mean the Iroquois; it's those MW's that make me think "Sioux." And I'll look for Aeson's Zulu strategies - I know I ca't keep neglecting those wacky guys.