StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Do any SD.net members have tips for Monarch games? I find Nobel and Prince easy, but Monarch seems to be a massive step up for me. I usually fall behind horribly in the tech race, have constant money problems, and usually end up being destroyed by an enemy with an army thrice my size.

Are there any good tips for these higher difficulty levels?

I've not ventured to prince (I'm somewhat opposed to the AI cheating, though it's not terribly competent in Noble sadly), but the AI cheats, and you take a couple handicaps. You've got to be good, manage your assets well, don't over expand, maintain a powerful standing army, and most of all, be a keen diplomat (which often involves religion). Having allies helps greatly.

The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

ALI_G wrote:The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

The AI gets an 'advantage' every step above Noble, for instance an extra unit, an extra worker, 2 free tech advances, etc.

I hear on Deity level the AI gets 3 settlers, a small army and something like 4 tech advances to start out with.

I rarely play above Noble as its just so annoying to be behind the whole time and essentially play for hours trying not to finish last.

ALI_G wrote:The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

What speed do you play on, by the by?

InnocentBystander wrote:

ALI_G wrote:The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

What speed do you play on, by the by?

Normal - can't stomach Epic or Marathon as I can't justify spending all that time only to lose. Quick is good for a 'quick' bash - but you don't get anything like the same satisfaction as a normal length game.

Stravo - that insane, how could one possibly win on Deity?! I have enough trouble with Monarch...

ALI_G wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:

ALI_G wrote:The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

What speed do you play on, by the by?

Normal - can't stomach Epic or Marathon as I can't justify spending all that time only to lose. Quick is good for a 'quick' bash - but you don't get anything like the same satisfaction as a normal length game.

Stravo - that insane, how could one possibly win on Deity?! I have enough trouble with Monarch...

Basically, you have to follow the "Win Civ IV on Deity" formula to the letter and hope for some good luck at the start of the game. I hate playing like that because I can't suspend disbelief. I'm not the mighty Imperator of the Arcadian Empire, I'm some jerk who should be doing schoolwork plugging numbers into a formula.

You can try disabling technology trading, thats one thing I do in all my games. It prevents the AI from getting huge tech advances over you.

And I like to play on Marathon speed, I hate building units only to have to upgrade them in a few turns.

anyone ever try playing pangea or terra with 18 civs on marathon or epic? Crazy hard. I'll the lead but then I'll get dragged into consecutive wars and tehn one ally will hit me where I am weak and then all the aggressive AIs dogpiles me. Building up reinforcements is hard to come by too.

ALI_G wrote:Stravo - that insane, how could one possibly win on Deity?! I have enough trouble with Monarch...

Just like Civ3. Take a civilization with a good unique unit and use a blitzkrieg strategy. Romans are the best if you manage to get iron early.

I have started a Monarch game with India, large map, 10 civs. So far so good - it's about 1000AD and I am in fourth place and, thanks to some nice goodie huts early on, I'm only one level behind most in terms of tech.

Sadly though my military absolutely sucks - there are wars happening all around me but so far I have not been picked on. I find this incredible as most games I am the first to the wall, particually with my traditionally crappy military .

My land is also very small and, crutially, I have no sea access, which will kill me when my enemies start settling on the new world continents later on.

I like that UU blitzkreig idea but I don't think my UU [Indian Fast Worker] will be very useful for it.

SO how good is Civ 4 compared to previous Civs?

2000AD wrote:SO how good is Civ 4 compared to previous Civs?

Better than Civ 3 by far, different and close to be as good but a little less addictive than Civ 2.

Haven't tried harder difficultly levels yet myself... So is the consensus so far to stay fairly small and focus on defense? Seems reasonable for the early game given those ridiculously strong archers you can build with all the bonuses. But what about the later stages when you have high populations, and all the resources you want to keep them happy/ build the combustion engine units are in others lands? go seeking
lebensraum?

those archers won't protect your terriotry from being pillaged to hell.

2000AD wrote:SO how good is Civ 4 compared to previous Civs?

It is somewhat a throwback to Civ 1&2 but with lots of impeovement. But IMHO Civ3 is better. I would spend about 150hours on one single map. but I'd spend maybe one fifth time on a similar sized map on Civ4. Honestly, I am not as addicted to Civ4 as I am with Civ3.

Stravo wrote:

ALI_G wrote:The AI cheats?! That explains why they seem to have a tech lead over me so early, not to mention hordes of Swordsmen by the early Classical Age...

The AI gets an 'advantage' every step above Noble, for instance an extra unit, an extra worker, 2 free tech advances, etc.

I hear on Deity level the AI gets 3 settlers, a small army and something like 4 tech advances to start out with.

I rarely play above Noble as its just so annoying to be behind the whole time and essentially play for hours trying not to finish last.

I don't know about Civ4, but I think I remember the Civ3 manual saying winning at the Diety level was only theoretical.

I have to say the AI is insane in Civ4. They build units like theres no tommorow to the point they run out of money for research.

What's it like compared to Civ: Call to Power? (I know it's not a real civ game, but it was my favorite of the lot)

I don't think there's any skill at all involved in playing against your average strategic AI: as Red says, once you're fighting the curve so bad you've stepped right outside the game to play catch-up, it's not worth playing anymore. I simply can't play a game past the first 'well, you're clearly cheating your dirty little ass off' moment. Civ4 is actually horrible for this, since early game there's nothing to spend money on so slight bonuses to economy or lucky starts for AIs end up allowing them to eventually spam out units or briefly maintain ridiculous armies with the retarded amount of money they saved in the first few thousand years. Just like real life!

But hey, anyone who thinks the AIs are playing the same dip game as them are in for a terrible surprise... but ole Sid 'moron' Meier was always a fan of the 'zomg winning!!1 quick dip penalties lolz' idea. Only for players, of course.

The difference between a hard(cheating) game and a challenging (cunning) opponent is cruicial in a long-term game like Civ, but I don't think Civ games have *ever* had credible AI, except maybe for AC. I remember the bad guys doing cagey things in that, without getting +1 anything per square.

Maybe when the SKD is released soon, players can actually make the AI more realistic? Until then I just don't think I am good enough to win on anything above Prince.

There seems to be a lot of bad feeling here to Civ III. Why is that? I enjoyed both II and III immensely.

I've only just started playing IV, so just call me Dan Quayle...

My biggest problem with all three Civs that I've played, is the ocean. It just takes so long to build up a fleet and ship it across the ocean. I always get repulsed easily, meanwhile, my home economy has been suffering due to all the resources redirected to shipping. So I usually just play on Pagea maps.

BTW, Stark, what does

Stark wrote:But hey, anyone who thinks the AIs are playing the same dip game as them are in for a terrible surprise... but ole Sid 'moron' Meier was always a fan of the 'zomg winning!!1 quick dip penalties lolz' idea. Only for players, of course.

actually mean?

I agree that navies suck; I also stick to oceanless maps such as the great farmlands one [or what ever it's called].

WyrdNyrd wrote:BTW, Stark, what does

Stark wrote:But hey, anyone who thinks the AIs are playing the same dip game as them are in for a terrible surprise... but ole Sid 'moron' Meier was always a fan of the 'zomg winning!!1 quick dip penalties lolz' idea. Only for players, of course.

actually mean?

The 'dip game' is the what you have to do while using the diplomacy system. All that ridiculous trade deal, tech trade rubbish. The AI does *not* operate under the same rules the player does: in some situations, it will be pretty much impossible for a player to make any deals at all, simply because the bar is to high for the 'accept/deny' decision. And you get a dip penalty if you're winning, so if you get too powerful everyone decides to try and kill you. JUST LIKE IN REAL LIFE! Am I rite?

I fucking wish that just once they could make a game AI challenging without having to resort to having the AI cheat.

Anyone found the scoring system to be a bit ... unfair? I got my highest ever score last night [1770 Conquest, Huge Map, Nobel] coming in at 17,300. However, a Prince win [albeit a Time one; missed the Space Race win by four turns ] only won me 8000 points, yet that Time win was so much harder than the Nobel Conquest.

I think difficultly and not turns taken should be the most important factor.