any advice in overcoming time restriction to get scientific advancements to get to the point of nukes?
also.... from the beginning i build an army and 1,000's of years are gone. tips? advice? help!
any advice in overcoming time restriction to get scientific advancements to get to the point of nukes?
also.... from the beginning i build an army and 1,000's of years are gone. tips? advice? help!
Use Japan!!!! they get food and science at the same time
also just practice, when you are good you can get a nuke easy by 1500 ad.
Why don't you give him something near to a strategy?
However without seeing what civ you use, when you build the first warrior don't fortify it, search barbarian villages, and try to build about 4 without building an army (it's a suicide without good bonuses to attack an AI). Use that gold to rush settlers or units to kill others, and use horsemen or catapults at least if you haven't good bonuses, as I have said.
fine... you want a strat morte..... Choose Japan.....build an archer army.....put workers in water. it is that simple to win in single player. now if you want a badly written way to "win every time" with a bunch of muslims then morte is your guyOriginally Posted by MorteEterna
It's pretty unnecessary to shoot off personal attacks against Morte. It's obvious English isn't his native language, and insulting him over his grammatical errors is pathetic. Morte was simply saying that telling the OP which Civ to use, and to practice isn't advice on how to finish the Manhattan Project.
On Topic: Rounder, as far as the Manhattan Project question, make sure you are building Libraries and Universities (especially in your main city), and choose a Civ that is tech savvy (i.e. China). As for your question about the fast production of armies, switch your workers to full production at the start of the game so that you have +4 Production instead of +2. Once you have 2-3 warriors, re-manage your workers. Also, I don't suggest making an army at the start of the game. It's better for getting barb huts if you leave them as individual units, that way you can explore in more than 1 direction.
what is wrong with practice? doesnt anyone do it any more? what is wrong with giving a kid a hint or 2 and letting him use his head and figure it out himself.maybe it is just me but i dont feel the same satisfaction after winning a game where i used another players strat than when i think up my own and then it works great. sorry, if you dont feel the same way. but here you go. search this forum for rome mega city strat. that will work on king easy. now once you do it, come back and tell me if you are satisfied. if you are...more power to you.
Were you talking to me or him? If me, I have played rome mega city strategy some times and also used that for arabs, and I have used also other strategies. But that strategy (zulu) doesn't work because AI will kill your armies (they did it a lot of times and I had also veteran warriors). However I can't see all my mystakes when I write something, I think however it's not so hard to understand what I was going to make you know
For the manhattan project the best way is having at least 5000 gold or a great builder, and if you can a great scientist for the atomic theory
The advice I gave Rounder was advice, a hint, not a strat. I do agree that forming your own strategies is more rewarding. However, basic advice (i.e. +4 Production at the start of the game) is hardly a strategy.
oh.. i know, i wasnt critisizing you. i was critisizing the fact that all these people want strats spoon fed to them and when you give them a hint, every one jumps on you and yells "THATS NOT A STRAT... I NEED A STRAT." sorry if you thought that that was aimed towards you.
okay.. we get it morte, you dont know how to use zulu. fine. use the arabs. but please quit critisizing civs because you dont know how to use them.
Yeah, I hear you. A lot of people do seem to crave a step-by-step strategy instead of figuring out strategies of their own. However, Rounder asked 2 fairly specific questions, so I think Morte and I just meant to say that he should get specific responses. I apologize too if I came off a bit vehement.
i know... i was just trying to point out that if you were experienced at this game you dont need specific strats to get atomic theory/ manhattin project. practicing is the best way to become experienced. i didnt do a very good job of making that clear.
Stop insulting me than saying what I would have to do.. They aren't a good civ, it's a statistic, because 3 vs 2,5 = lose almost sure. And if you have veteran warriors it's not so easy, because your enemy have archers fast. Don't call me one that can't play other civs than arabs and others.. I can play all civs, but zulu aren't good rushers, AI has good luck and you lose every time or almost all of them for that. And it depends also where you start. They are good for a economic victory more than a domination victory.. As I have said in the real life zulu have conquered only barbarians and they didn't do some conquest as Rome, for example.. They are good if you have luck, but they aren't the best civ to play
someone skipped out on math class. 3>2.5 this means that more than half the time the unit with 3 will win. actually the 3 unit has 20% more power than the 2.5 unit. i dont know how a 20% advantage=lose almost sure, but im sure you will find a way to break the rules of mathematics. looks like you skipped out on statistics class as well. the statement "they arent a good civ" is not a statistic, but an opinion. a rather close minded opinion at that.
I was talking about they aren't a good civ to rush, only for economic maybe. However I know the mathematic and STOP INSULTING ME. AI has more than luck, they win a lot of times having less points when you attack and you have to know that attack and defence aren't the thins that can say who could win. Who defend has double strike (1 kill 2, because it's one unit vs an army), who attacks no. You have few possibilities to win, because impis I have seen in battles, they aren't so fast, so the warrior that defend has more possibilities, in the end.. Why don't you start to respect me, instead of insulting me, saying I'm stupid, saying I didn't go to maths lessons, etc...
i dont know what game your playing but.... ATTACK AND DEFENSE DETERMINES WHO WINS. IF YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE YOU WIN MORE THAN HALF OF THE TIME. just because you have bad luck does not mean that anyone else playing will. once again, dont assume that just because it doesnt work for you, does not mean it doesnt work.
i dont respect you because you dont respect anyone else on these boards. you talk down to everyone and have an incredably closed mind. you insult every one who doesnt think exactly like you and automatically close out any ideas that anyone else has. instead of trying to learn something from someone elses ideas you automatically assume that yours is better. that is why i dont respect you. if you dont respect me, too bad, i dont want nor need your respect.
i dont know what game your playing but.... ATTACK AND DEFENSE DETERMINES WHO WINS. IF YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE YOU WIN MORE THAN HALF OF THE TIME. just because you have bad luck does not mean that anyone else playing will. once again, dont assume that just because it doesnt work for you, does not mean it doesnt work.
i dont respect you because you dont respect anyone else on these boards. you talk down to everyone and have an incredably closed mind. you insult every one who doesnt think exactly like you and automatically close out any ideas that anyone else has. instead of trying to learn something from someone elses ideas you automatically assume that yours is better. that is why i dont respect you. if you dont respect me, too bad, i dont want nor need your respect.
1) I respect others, and you say anyone else, it's not true
2) I haven't a closed mind, you think that, I have my question to ask.
3)I don't, and I don't insult others.
4) I see which strategies are good, if they are I try them, or if I see these could be good. It's only which you think, not the real facts
5) I respect you, but you don't respect me.
Not it would be a good thing if you stop insulting me, and you respect me, so I will be friendly with you, and I am with who respects me
fine... my only problem with you is many times i have seen someone suggest something and you come in saying "that doesnt work, why would you think that" or "that isnt a good civ, they suck". if you would instead say "that strat hasnt worked well for me" or "i never play well with that civ, i prefer xxxx", then i will be friendly with you as well. just dont assume that because something doesnt work for you that it wont work for someone else. if you could quit doing that then sorry for arguing and best of luck to ya.
Now that makes historical sense.
Holy cow people, stop derailing topics.
Either give advice here, whether it be a small tidbit, a link, or a full strategy. Just be constructive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote