Any tips ?

[Le Mulet]

I have hard time even against the first challenge :(

[Imhotep]

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/234527-through-the-ages/faqs/75690

[Obluda]

Always try and nab a good leader, especially a good Age I leader. Try to be flexible and build around the cards that are available to you.

First turn, should typically involve the following:

+1 mine
+1 population

In particular, while Age A events are waiting to come out, it is ideal to have an idle worker at all times. This is because several Age A events let you do something with that worker for free.

The next priorities are:
+1 civil action (from pyramids, Code of Laws or a government)
+1 lab (science is very important!)

Food is a low priority for the most part, compared to basically everything else in the game. Only invest in food if you have an excess of happiness, and even then only invest if you are generating barely any food and can benefit from the pop growth. That said, it is still good to get tech upgrades for your farming. This is so that you can keep food production in pace with consumption without too much investment.

Typically, it is most efficient to 'skip' an age in any given tech chain. Getting Iron and then Coal and then Oil is probably unecessary. You'll be spending extra science and extra actions upgrading through each step in the chain. Iron -> Oil or Bronze -> Coal is usually good enough. Obviously, if you skip, you need to be sure that you get the next tech in the chain, even if it means spending 3 Civil Actions to nab the card.

Don't get a tech upgrade that comes out right at the end of an age, usually better to wait until the new age and just nab the relevant tech from that age.

Yellow Cards that make actions more efficient (e.g. Engineering Genius, Breakthrough, Urban Growth) are better than Yellow Cards that just give resources. This is because they combine with another civil action you would take anyway, so they only 'cost' the civil actions needed to claim them.

Tactics, if you draw them (or common tactics), should guide your military development. They serve as force multipliers and allow you to invest less to get more out of your military. Only go for a strong military if opportunity allows. Otherwise, just try to keep pace and try to be among the top two strongest civs if possible.

All of the above is contingent on circumstance, of course. For example, if you have Aristotle as your first leader and/or Library of Alexandria as your first wonder, getting a second lab might be a lower priority. If you have coal and the last oil just showed up and your opponent is stuck with Iron or Bronze, you might want to take it just to deprive them, etc...

[Obluda]

Originally posted by Imhotep:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/234527-through-the-ages/faqs/75690

I would take the card evaluations in this guide with a grain of salt. For example, Colossus is considered by many top players to be quite weak, and the Library of Alexandria is shown by data analysis to be stronger than Pyramids:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1933554/data-driven-strategy-tips

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Obluda:

Originally posted by Imhotep:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/234527-through-the-ages/faqs/75690

I would take the card evaluations in this guide with a grain of salt. For example, Colossus is considered by many top players to be quite weak, and the Library of Alexandria is shown by data analysis to be stronger than Pyramids:

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1933554/data-driven-strategy-tips

Agreed. I have had good success with Joan of Arc, and she is portrayed as a very poor choice. YMMV, and every game is situational.

[Ail]

I've watched a few streams of newbie-players and there seem to be some common mistakes.

One such thing, which isn't even tied to playing itself is the option at which speed the AI turns are displayed. I highly recommend to set it to the one that displays their actions step-wise with text. For a new player there are a lot of things to be learned from the AI that otherwise would just happen unnoticed.

Whenever something happens that you don't quite understand make sure to read all the cards involved. This will let you learn about combos you probably weren't aware of.

Another common mistake is to overestimate the wrong aspects of the game. Usually mineral-production but sometimes even food-production. Both are subject to corruption so having more than you can reasonably spend is just a waste. If you run into corruption more than 1 or 2 times over the course of an entire game, you are doing something wrong.

Science and civil actions, on the other hand are resources you can never have too many of. Also science is much easier to convert into culture in the late-game.

One thing that is often underestimated is the importance of military-actions. Having enough MAs drastically increases the chance that you draw something that is useful for you and harmful for your opponents. It often seems like "bad luck" if you sit on a strong army but don't draw an attack-card but that luck is influenceable by the amount of MAs you have.

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Ail:

I've watched a few streams of newbie-players and there seem to be some common mistakes.

One such thing, which isn't even tied to playing itself is the option at which speed the AI turns are displayed. I highly recommend to set it to the one that displays their actions step-wise with text. For a new player there are a lot of things to be learned from the AI that otherwise would just happen unnoticed.

Whenever something happens that you don't quite understand make sure to read all the cards involved. This will let you learn about combos you probably weren't aware of.

Another common mistake is to overestimate the wrong aspects of the game. Usually mineral-production but sometimes even food-production. Both are subject to corruption so having more than you can reasonably spend is just a waste. If you run into corruption more than 1 or 2 times over the course of an entire game, you are doing something wrong.

Science and civil actions, on the other hand are resources you can never have too many of. Also science is much easier to convert into culture in the late-game.

One thing that is often underestimated is the importance of military-actions. Having enough MAs drastically increases the chance that you draw something that is useful for you and harmful for your opponents. It often seems like "bad luck" if you sit on a strong army but don't draw an attack-card but that luck is influenceable by the amount of MAs you have.

Completely reasonable comments. I find myself reviewing the computer's turns, to get a feel for what combinations they like to play. Slowing the game down will also help you to develop your understanding of the game mechanics.

A couple of more points...frequently it is better to delete a low level farm or mine, instead of adding yet another population point. These pops have to be supported, and that takes additional actions and ores to do.

Wonders can drive your entire strategy. The ocean liner, for example, by providing free population every single turn totally obsoletes all farming, farming research, and population purchasing. Very powerful wonder, in the right circumstance, as you can use those resources for research, or army building.

[Le Mulet]

Thanks guys for all your advice, i will try again you re the best friend i ever had !

[Swisspike]

Get a leader that will help with your defense. If you get ANY advantage over another player, attack. At the very worst, they will have to spend military action cards to defend, and will be more vulnerable the next turn.

[Ail]

Originally posted by Swisspike:

Get a leader that will help with your defense. If you get ANY advantage over another player, attack. At the very worst, they will have to spend military action cards to defend, and will be more vulnerable the next turn.

I actually have to disagree here. Attacking when you know it's going to be defended means you can't play an event that would actually benefit you. While your opponent might be in the same situation if they really need all of their cards to defend, that's not a net-gain for you. Playing a strength-based event instead in that situation has a better chance of being beneficial.

I'd only play agressions against someone when your strenght-advantage is higher than they have cards/military actions (whichever is lower). That way, even when they defend, it must include defense/colonization cards which weakens them in that aspect.

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Ail:

Originally posted by Swisspike:

Get a leader that will help with your defense. If you get ANY advantage over another player, attack. At the very worst, they will have to spend military action cards to defend, and will be more vulnerable the next turn.

I actually have to disagree here. Attacking when you know it's going to be defended means you can't play an event that would actually benefit you. While your opponent might be in the same situation if they really need all of their cards to defend, that's not a net-gain for you. Playing a strength-based event instead in that situation has a better chance of being beneficial.

I'd only play agressions against someone when your strenght-advantage is higher than they have cards/military actions (whichever is lower). That way, even when they defend, it must include defense/colonization cards which weakens them in that aspect.

Consider if they have five cards, and you can force them to throw away three. This pulls their teeth for their turn, and also makes it less likely that they can colonize. Nothing wrong with using one of your attack cards to limit an opponents' options.

[Ail]

Well, in the case that you yourself have no better option that's true. But limiting the opponents potential to play something good by playing something that does nothing for yourself still doesn't seem like a good enough trade to me. I mean if I only had a defensive card and an agression I might still do it. But if I think I'm getting ahead in military, I might rather save the agression for when it might actually go through their defenses.

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Ail:

Well, in the case that you yourself have no better option that's true. But limiting the opponents potential to play something good by playing something that does nothing for yourself still doesn't seem like a good enough trade to me. I mean if I only had a defensive card and an agression I might still do it. But if I think I'm getting ahead in military, I might rather save the agression for when it might actually go through their defenses.

I agree..the best use for an aggression card is to win a battle. But...if you have more than one, and you have extra tactics available, then there is no loss, only gain.

[Obluda]

Well, in the case where your opponent can definitely defend, when playing an aggression instead of preparing an event you do lose out on:

(1) The military actions required to play the aggression, which will reduce your military card draw and make it harder to maintain or grow your relative military strength advantage.
(2) The culture points gained from preparing an event.
(3) The potential benefits of the event you could prepare when it comes out down the line.
(4) The actual benefits of any prepared events which benefit the players with the strongest military (i.e. most of them).
(5) The benefits of using that aggression successfully later on.

You also potentially enable other strong players to beat up on the defending player. If the defending player is in the lead, this might be worth it. Otherwise, all you're doing is creating a softer target for your opponents to take advantage of and gain an advantage themselves.

I'm with Ail, I don't think that you should attack automatically if you are stronger than the opponent in cases where they can easily defend.

[Swisspike]

Originally posted by Obluda:

Well, in the case where your opponent can definitely defend, when playing an aggression instead of preparing an event you do lose out on:

(1) The military actions required to play the aggression, which will reduce your military card draw and make it harder to maintain or grow your relative military strength advantage.
(2) The culture points gained from preparing an event.
(3) The potential benefits of the event you could prepare when it comes out down the line.
(4) The actual benefits of any prepared events which benefit the players with the strongest military (i.e. most of them).
(5) The benefits of using that aggression successfully later on.

You also potentially enable other strong players to beat up on the defending player. If the defending player is in the lead, this might be worth it. Otherwise, all you're doing is creating a softer target for your opponents to take advantage of and gain an advantage themselves.

I'm with Ail, I don't think that you should attack automatically if you are stronger than the opponent in cases where they can easily defend.

The key here is easily defend, especially if you desire to gain a colony or two. The first cards used in defense are generally those that assist in colonization.

[Imhotep]

Here are some more guides, dealing with the subjects of resources, corruption and Wonders:

http://statelyplay.com/2017/09/25/strategy-101-through-the-ages-resource-edition/
http://statelyplay.com/2017/09/26/strategy-101-through-the-ages-corruption-edition/
http://statelyplay.com/2017/09/29/strategy-101-through-the-ages-wonder-edition/