29-10-2004 02:45									#31
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes unless you are playing Chief or Warlord. As a RoT (rule of thumb) CxxxC is too far apart. Ok you can get away with a higher level, but it gets harder.

You cannot get the city up to a size that would let it use all of those tiles for a long time. You are then faced with lots of tiles to road that no one will work.

You have greater distances to travel to aid a city under attack. This does not have to mean that you can have no city at that distance. Just you need a reason to do it, such as terrain.

	29-10-2004 12:11									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shr3dZ I started by trying the CxxC but realized I had a bit too much power in the beginning so now Im trying the CxxxC and it makes it a bit more even, plus less MM.

I don't really understand this comment You can't have "too much power", or if you do, move up a difficulty level.

As vmxa1 says, CxxC is a whole lot more efficient than CxxxC. You will find of course that using CxxC most cities will only grow to size 12 (with some even maxing out at around 8 or 9), but this is again more efficient and means you don't have to waste time building Hospitals in the late game. It is a rare game that I will build more than a couple of Hospitals, and then only for a mega-city to get the late Wonders or SS parts.

Golden Bear ---> if you are able to achieve size 17 to 21 in most cities, then you are using at least CxxxC spacing, which is too far apart. Try bringing them closer. This will save you worker turns and allow you to share tiles between cities (which is particularly useful when one city is building Settlers and with the pop drop another city can use the extra improved tiles).

Remember, the key to success in this game is making sure every worked tile is improved, and every tile within your empire is worked. Closer spacing means less worker effort and better utilisation of tiles. Wider spacing means that for most of the game a large number of tiles within your empire will not be worked at all. You will be amazed at the increase in commerce you will see from closer spacing, which translates into faster research. You will also experience lower corruption and waste in these core cities.

The other key to success is growth ---> there's another current thread on this, so go read that too.

	29-10-2004 18:53									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

On Monarch, I strongly recommend CxxxC. Above that, the others are right - CxxC is most likely the best choice.

The trouble with CxxC is that often this results in an empire devoid of production powerhouses. Your cities will max out somewhere between size 8 and 12, and it will be unlikely that you have more than a few cities capable of 15 spt (net). That's fine until you want to build large buildings (universities, banks) or wonders. Then it kinda sucks.

My empires (played on Monarch) typically end up being a mixture of CxxxC, CxxC and an occasional CxxxxC.

-Arrian

	29-10-2004 19:03									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

meh, I'd rather two cities taking full advantage of the tiles and producing 15spt each than one city producing 25spt. The only real downside I personally see with cxxc is that you have to build and maintain more improvements, but I think that cost is greatly outweighed by the gains. Besides, if you're comparing it to cxxxc you're really only building approximately one extra improvement per four cities and cxxc gives more cities that are actually worth putting the 'higher' improvements in.

	29-10-2004 21:42									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Go camping and get the best of both worlds...

CxCxC (or similar) with the specific plan of destroying the middle city somewhere around early-mid midieval. Gives you the early production, and later allows the cities to grow.

	29-10-2004 21:51									#36
	Suffering from ads?

First the game is probably won in most case by the time you can build hospitals to get above size 12.

Second I will have many cities over 12 if I play that late in the game. You simply take a few tiles from another city, that does not really need them as it is not getting a hospital.

Third, if you are in Rep and you and need a large army, you will be glad to have all those extra cities to allow unit support. This is something that only comes into play at Sid for me.

Fourth, at Monarch you can do almost nothing to lose, so you can do whatever makes you happy. But if you build a few camps among those cities, you can disband them later to yield lots of 19 or so tiled cities.

The point is that players that are asking for help, likely cannot manage their empire as well as players that have a lot of playing time logged. They can benefit from a bit of tightening of city spacing.

	29-10-2004 22:13									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

Fair 'nough.

-Arrian

	29-10-2004 23:31									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Aqualung71 I don't really understand this comment You can't have "too much power", or if you do, move up a difficulty level.

Heh, I didnt have a lot of time to post back then, but even though you say you dont understand it looks like you got the point. Considering the title of the thread, what I was trying to say was that on Monarch having city spacing CxxC is too much power, I easy won. And with all those extra cities it adds to a lot of MM. Im playing with CxxxC and Im finding that I had a lil less power early on, but now that all my cities are 12+ in Rep I can support hundreds of troops - getting me back the power I might have missed in the early game.

Perhaps I should try Emperor soon...

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 Fourth, at Monarch you can do almost nothing to lose, so you can do whatever makes you happy.

What do you mean by that ?

	30-10-2004 00:15									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I mean that players like Arrian can beat the game at Monarch with their eyes closed.

So they can get away with a wide city spacing. They know what to expect in almost all cases and can handle it.

Players that were beating Regent with a good start and are just playing Monarch will not be able to do that in most cases.

He plays monarch, not because emperor is to hard, it is not hard at all. He plays it because he likes being able to hammer it. wants to be able to get the wonders that he prefers.

If you play at Demi or higher, you will not be able to do that. You have to have a different mind set. If you play Sid, you have to get use to being in a great big hole. Not getting more than one or two early wonders. Maybe none in the middle ages.

Have an axe over your head for most of the game. This is not fun for most players.

	30-10-2004 01:55									#40
	Tired of ads?

I play on Monarch not only because I can "hammer" it, but also because I can hammer it using the style I prefer. Civ, to me, is as much about aesthetics as strategy. It took me a little while to realize that.

-Arrian

	30-10-2004 13:47									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I play on Monarch not only because I can "hammer" it, but also because I can hammer it using the style I prefer. Civ, to me, is as much about aesthetics as strategy. It took me a little while to realize that. -Arrian

Definately agree. Same reason I stay at emperor, so that I can get away with 2 govt changes, playing my...unique...strategies. Feudalism -> Fascism baby.

* UnOrthOdOx watches most of the forum cringe at the thought...

	30-10-2004 13:55									#42
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx Definately agree. Same reason I stay at emperor, so that I can get away with 2 govt changes, playing my...unique...strategies. Feudalism -> Fascism baby. * UnOrthOdOx watches most of the forum cringe at the thought...

Same here about Emperor. Monarch just had the AI produce too few units for a good fight.

And the government idea is quite interesting. So far, I've only tried Republic -> Fascism as Germany, combining the historical roleplay and a GA with Mobilization.

	01-11-2004 19:02									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

CxxC is a good spacing at Monarch and Emporer. I don't pla any higher than that because I feel CxC is just silly and leads to too much MM. YMMV.

	01-11-2004 20:16									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx Definately agree. Same reason I stay at emperor, so that I can get away with 2 govt changes, playing my...unique...strategies. Feudalism -> Fascism baby. * UnOrthOdOx watches most of the forum cringe at the thought...

:applauds:

Republic is for wimps.

* Theseus ducks

	01-11-2004 20:30									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx . Definately agree. Same reason I stay at emperor, so that I can get away with 2 govt changes, playing my...unique...strategies. Feudalism -> Fascism baby. * UnOrthOdOx watches most of the forum cringe at the thought...

Hence your handle

	01-11-2004 21:19									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Theseus :applauds: Republic is for wimps. * Theseus ducks

I once played a sid game out in despotism to see what that was like, it is not for wimps, just nuts.

	02-11-2004 02:48									#47
	Support Apolyton

Wow. This thread jumped forward a lot over the weekend.

I have been building CxxC and then only building hospitals in the cities where I want them. That way I can still manage to get cities to size 14-20 in high productivity areas.

Funny thing. I started a game with a perfect two cows set up. It had dyes in forest right next to it. Boom, 4 turn settler pump. Nice cluster of cities, lots of area to expand. However, before I knew it, the AI had, with wide spacing, spread out to block me in. I have 50% more cities but was packed into a tiny space.

As a result, I am toying with clustering at CxxC around the home city and then spreading wide and fast outside of that.

The current game started with two cows and a wheat so that I was able to run a 2 turn worker pump along with the 4SP. My only difficulty with the 4SP is the happiness slider tweaking... too easy to forget.

Thanks for the good advice. OK, somebody (sorry if this is a tiny threadjacking), how do you use Feudalism? I have not had enough success with it to want to use it. I usually, whimpishly, go Despot-Republic-Demo if I want a SS win or stop at Republic for domination.

BTW, in the last Monarch game, I was on a continent with 5 neighbors and none of us had horse. I started to do a swordsman rush but saw that the AIs archers usually killed my troops. Thus, I changed to an archer rush and swept half the continent. I found that to be amusing.

	02-11-2004 03:18									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

That last bit was just wacky combat luck. Swordsmen > Archers. 3.2.1 vs 2.1.1. If the archers are attacking your swords, that's a problem since the odds are then roughly even. Which is why you want to bring along a few spearman to eat up the AI counterattacks (same defense as swords, but 20 shields instead of 30).

For better results, bring along bombard support (catapults, trebuchets, etc). Softening the opposition up first tends to reduce the number of times you lose battles you "should" win. Like swordsmen attacking archers and dying.

-Arrian

	02-11-2004 04:31									#49
	Inflate your Upload Space

Goldenbear you do not give us enough details to address the combat. If swords attack archers with no def bonus, then swords win.

If archers are forted on forrest, then archers win. One other thing is that in C3C archer get the bombardment, so that could make a big difference in a small sample.

If I have 5 swords and they have 5 archers, out in the open on flat land, I am happy to attack them (with or without spears/cats).

Of course I am much happier if I have a spear or two and 3 cats, but that is just mean.

	03-11-2004 00:13									#50
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Archer forted on forest should be a 1.5 defense (defense of 1 +25% for fortifying, +25% for forest bonus). So, even if another archer lands the zero-range bombard, the odds should be in the swordsman's favor. I suppose if we're talking about regular swords vs. vet or elite archers, it could be about even.

Most likely a small sample size issue.

quote: I am much happier if I have a spear or two and 3 cats, but that is just mean.

-Arrian

	03-11-2004 00:44									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Arrian, I used the DES combat calc for 5 vs 5 all vets 10 trails and the archers won 80% of the time.

My experience tells me that I would favor the swords, but I would be worried, if the archers were forted in a forrest.

For sure a one on one, I go with the swords every time. We all know it does not have to go your way, even against a warrior.

	03-11-2004 01:02									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

For clarification... I am not declaring that there was any ai cheating going on. And, I am quite happy to attack archers with swordsmen. The problem, curiously, is more on the defense side. But let's see if I can explain it better, and you can take for granted that I understand terrain effects on combat.

Swordsmen are not fast. It takes them, at best border conditions (unless there is something funny, a zero border) a turn to get next to a city and a turn to attack it. So I begin my SM rush with 8 or 9 of them, figuring to build as I go. Basically, one principle of combat against the AI is that I want to get multiple kills out of each unit and to prevent the opponent from getting multiples.

Anyway, my troops cross the border and are on good defensive terrain. Hills. Not great but there are rivers on two sides. Before they ever get a chance to attack, they are absolutely ravaged by archers. I had 2 damaged SM after their turn and they lost only 1 or 2 attackers. These attackers came across rivers and uphill to beat the more expensive troops.

My thought was, "shoot, two can play at that game." For 70% of the cost of SM, I can build archers and lots of them. I have never tried this before since I always favored SM. I was amused that it actually worked. Plus, I did not feel bad about losing a cheap unit in a human wave assault.

	03-11-2004 02:11									#53
	Remove this text

Wow I ran 1 trial, then 10, then 1000 and the archers never one once. No archers survived.

I took them to all be vets and SM meant swordsmen. You sure they were not bowman or long bowmen?

Remind me not to stand next to you in any storms.

	03-11-2004 04:12									#54
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Regarding Regent ---> Monarch. I don't notice a big jump between Regent and Monarch. Wasn't a big step for me. Now, going up above Monarch, is to me a much larger step. The AI unit bonii really stack up then. (no pun intended).

I usually play Monarch for research purposes, meaning that I can beat it regularly using the style I prefer. Monarch lets me try different strategies, and that's what I like to do with Civ.

If I want a true challenge, then I go a little higher on the diff level. Sid is too much for me though. I admit it...

	03-11-2004 22:24									#55
	Inflate your Upload Space

Vxma, I wish I still had the save so that you could enjoy the spectacle!

I was surprised myself since I have always considered the SM rush to be a standard feature. Yes, the were lowly little archers. I am used to the AI swarming me with archers, since I have seen that a lot. I was not used to seeing my SM rush get stopped cold like that.

It has caused me to build more archers and fewer swordsmen in subsequent games.

I noticed a distinct step in difficulty from Regent to Monarch. It is most notable to me in the factor of money. Cash is not as easy to manage on Monarch - still not hard. Monarch takes some planning where Regent takes none.

I am going to step up a level and see if I survive.

I keep trying to get along with other nations and build rather than conquer but my games all seem to follow a similar pattern:

Start
Out expand the AI, build cheap units
Get along with everybody, trade techs, etc.
Get big and powerful, have neighbors attack without apparent provocation.
Get monster powerful with TOE and such
Entire world turns on me and I fight them with luxury slider way up for about 30 turns.
World gives up and I build SS or Dominate

The result of having my score shoot up during the 2nd/3rd tech period seems necessary to be AI WW focused on me.

Maybe at Emperor I can play behind a leader and not get gang attacked.

	03-11-2004 22:43									#56
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Golden Bear Maybe at Emperor I can play behind a leader and not get gang attacked.

That's a good one.

If you play behind the leader, he'll be the one to attack you. And since he'll be the leader, he won't have trouble paying good tech for others to attack you. If you let that happen, of course.

The simple solution (if you don't just kill them ) is to make the AI beat up each other instead of you. When one attacks you, pay others to attack him. You can usually pay the whole world, so that the attacker ends up dead - this is useful if he's really big. Or, if he is too small to survive (or you can't afford pying everyone), pay selected civs to attack him. Usually after a turn or two your allies and the one that attacked you will start alliances against each other. Soon the whole world will be at war with itself. After the 20 turns end your defensive alliances peacefully, kick back and enjoy the show. It will be a world war not involving you. This is easier to achieve on large and huge worlds. Most important: do not get back to war unless you are ready for some serious AI extermination. The second time around everybody's reputation will be worth crap and they'll be breaking treaties in no time.

	03-11-2004 23:00									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Golden Bear the same scenario will be in play at emperor. The main different is the timeline will slide. You will take longer to get caught up and take a lead.

Like Modo said, you could end up with the big guy after you and with some friends. This makes life a bit harder. Usually this is not going to be a civ that is close to you, since you will be able to keep them in check (or lose).

Domination wins get rough in all but pangea maps as it takes so long to gear up to invade. This will be true at all higher levels. Maybe smaller than std maps, it could be different.

Anyway look at some of the good threads on emperor. Ducki and Mountain Sage threads come to mind.

	03-11-2004 23:35									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Start Out expand the AI, build cheap units Get along with everybody, trade techs, etc. Get big and powerful, have neighbors attack without apparent provocation. Get monster powerful with TOE and such Entire world turns on me and I fight them with luxury slider way up for about 30 turns. World gives up and I build SS or Dominate

So true! Just now in my game Im at the point where the whole world is starting to go against me. Its like a chain reaction of alliances against me. Luckily I was able to get 2 of my neighbors in a MPP with me, that should make it easier on me while I select one AI for termination.

Any of the cities I take will be so far down the corruption crap hole that I may aswell just raze all the cities... or take them and offer them as gifts to the two civs im allied with eh?

	04-11-2004 00:58									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

MPPs are bad. When you are forced to go to war because of one, the treaty is automatically prolonged. This means that if you want to honor the treaty, you often get into a neverending war. Instead, sign alliances against specific enemies you want eliminated or stalled in their attacks against you. After 20 turns you can cancel the alliance no matter what and leave the AI to fight among themselves. This way they won't be able to draw you back in if you don't want to. This is especially important if you are running a Democracy or other government with War Weariness, where a 40 turn war is not what you want to have.

	04-11-2004 01:20									#60
	Increase Your PM Length

I agree with Modo about MPPs. However, I have used them to get around AI MPPs. Neighbor A is someone I want to invade but signs MPP with Neighbor B. I sign MPP with B. Declare war on A but don't invade - dangle settlers just inside my border near A's troops. AI cannot resist the settlers and B declares on them.

Of course, then B declares on C, D and E and I wind up in WW.

Maybe I just agree with Modo

The gang attack in my current game happened so quickly that I could not stop it. Incas declare/attack. Mind you, they are the only civ left on MY continent. Ahem.

Anyway, they shoot cav and inf all over the place. I start to clean them up and the same turn look for alliances. I have not broken any treaties at any time. I even stayed in a war for 12 additional turns to honor an alliance. Anyway, nobody will sign with me for any amount of money - and I had lots. Or for tech advances or anything else. Of course I was 3X the score of the nearest. So I gifted them with luxuries figuring that might think twice before giving up free goodies. Nope.

Next turn, Incas sign with French. French sign with Byzantines. And so on.

I yanked the lux slider up to about 60% at the end (Republic and poor on lux variety). Erased the Inca with tanks. Bought inexpensive peace with everybody after they had been shelling, bombing and invading for 20 turns. After peace, I turtle up and finish researching SS stuff. Domination is too much effort.

Emperor next. I've been reading the threads and am ready. I assume I am allowed a couple restarts to get a reasonable position?