Civ IV

Remove all ads!

Like I said, combining the cottage economy (CE) with a financial leader are the teets. Remember that the bonus is any tile producing at least two gold gets an extra gold piece. Water tiles automatically get two gold, and so are instantly bumped to three. The other big bonus are for plains and grassland tiles that border on a river. The river gives +1 gold to those tiles, so as soon as you build a cottage, it bumps it to 2 gold, and you get the bonus, so a newly contructed cottage can yield three gold for financial leaders. The cottages that aren't adjacent to river tiles aren't bad, but they need to grow to the second stage before you start receiving the bonus gold.

 

What you're talking about is synergy and it's a very important aspect of Civ IV strategy.

 

LOL! I guess I'll do the Diplomatic Victory via the UN rather than the Apolstolic Palace. It is turning out to be a strange game. I started out on an island, and I was able to discover a couple of other very small islands. I did build the apostolic palace, but as it turns out, I was the only one who possessed my state religion at the time I built it. In fact, at the time I had built it, I did not have contact with any of the other civilizations. So no one had any of the religions I had founded and I didn't have any of the religions anyone else had founded. So I always win the elections (I'm the only one who can vote!). However, I guess I'll never get to pass any resolutions, presumably because I don't have enough of the world population.

Anyway, I'm still hoping for a UN victory. As the game progressed I eventually did find the other civs, and overall they seem like a nice bunch of fellows. Alexander, Hammurabi, Roosevelt, and Ghandi (with Frederick eliminated). With the exception of that extremely short war with Frederick at the beginning of the game, I haven't gone to war with anybody. I while I haven't got anyone to have the opinion of me be "Friendly" they are all "Pleased". I've traded as much as possible, both techs and resources, and the only negative points I get from anyone is the "you traded with our worst enemy" bit, which I cannot avoid if I'm trying to get along with everyone.

 

Ah, that's the trick. You don't want to get along with everybody. You just want to get along really well with your friends and have a few suckers lined up to be everyone's mutual enemy.

 

What are some of you guy's favorite civs?? I want to start experimenting with diffierent civs than I usually play.

 

I undersatnd that, but at the present time, I'm not too keen on picking which opposing civ will be everyone's mutual enemy, nor which civ I would up against in the vote. My stategy thus far is centered on technological superiority, although not necessarily military superiority. This is simply because if I want to be sure I build the UN first, I had better be damn sure I'm ahead enough in the tech race so that I have the first opportunity to actually build the UN. I'm basing my strategy on a couple of core assumptions, so if you can either support or refute these, it will help me to fine tune my strategy:

Assumption 1: During the elections, the civ that I run against will always vote for themselves.

Assumption 2: If a civ is "worst enemies" of one of the civs in the election, it will always vote for the other option

Assumption 3: If a civ is "worst enemies" of BOTH the civs in the election, it will abstain.

No matter how well my relations may be with a particular civ, I assume they will vote for themselves. I'm assuming that the two candidates are whoever builds the UN and whoever has the highest score (or the second highest score if the UN builder has the highest score).

And that's the problem here. It certainly appears that I'll be running against either Hammurabi or Alexander, and their scores are nearly identical. Since they are worst enemies of each other, it seems pretty clear that if I can keep my rating as "Pleased" with both of them that whichever one is not up for election would cast thier vote my way. If I were certain which one would be in the election (is there a factor other than score at work?) then there would be no ultimate benefit it being good friends with them, as I would not get their vote regardless. I cannot get in really tight with either one though, without alienating the other, and if I pick wrong, it would have disasterous consequences during the vote. I'm kind of hoping they go to war with each other, one gainst the upper hand, and then I side with the one that gets beat up on.

The trick here is to figure out who I'm running against. Any tips?

 

I love the Celts, the music is great and I like Brennus as a leader. Spiritual is a very flexible trait.

The Sumerian empire is really good especially for early games with Vultures (a good UU) and Ziggurats (courthouses that you can build with Priesthood). Gilgamesh's traits are not so good though (Protective doesn't help that much).

As far as Financial leaders go I'm partial to Hannibal, although Mansa Musa can be awesome.

I used to like Saladin when he was Philosophical, I'm not fond of him now that he is Protective.

You will probably have to pick sides as the "you refused to help us during war time" will kick in. Pay attention to the "you declared war on a friend" as well. That being said if the war is limited that may work in your favour but if you're the only neutral civ your diplomacy modifiers will take hits all around.

If I were you I'd try to find out where other civs stand in order to minimize the risk of getting too many negative modifiers. If you get drawn in a large scale war you'll want to get as many allies as possible but that may strengthen your main ally so it's really tricky.

What I mean is that when you play a diplomatic game and you're ahead of the AI you may run against your best ally for the UN and that is annoying because your common allies will probably have to cast their votes between you and the AI civ.

Don't forget the Warmonger Respect. Alexander will probably get a higher modifier from warlike leaders. You don't benefit from that modifier so that will tip the scales against you.

 

Lol. I love the Zulu music for some reason....If I dont pick him, I usually play custom games with him on my team

 

Warmonger respect? What is that?

Regarding picking civs: I admit that I'm not that variable in my civ/leader selection. I pick based on traits and since I'm partial to Financial and Philosophical, I tend to pick leaders that have at least one of those two. The one trait that I definitely don't like is Protective. I never pick a Protective leader, although I assume that the Koreans (who combine Protective with Financial) might be OK.

I also don't like playing against a protective leader. A longbowman, fortified in a city on a hill behind city walls just isn't worth the effort to get rid of.

Recently, I've been trying to acheive different victory conditions than I usually do, and so I've been picking some different civs. I really liked the Dutch when I tried a cultural victory. The unique building is excellent for any coastal city. I'm currently going for a diplomatic victory, and I loke Mansa Musa as well. The unique unit is the skirmisher, which is very solid in city defense early on, although nothing fantastic. Their UB is the Mint, which replaces the forge and gives a 10% bonus to gold, which isn't bad either considering you'd build a forge in a lot of cities anyway.

 

Warmonger respect is a diplomacy bonus which depends on the leader:

+2

Alexander, Brennus, Catherine, De Gaulle, Genghis Khan, Gilgamesh, Hannibal, Huayna Capac, Kublai Khan, Louis XIV, Mao Zedong, Montezuma, Napoleon, Peter, Qin Shi Huang, Ragnar, Shaka, Tokugawa.

+1

Augustus Caesar, Bismarck, Boudica, Charlemagne, Hammurabi, Isabella, Joao II, Julius Caesar, Justinian I, Mehmed II, Saladin, Stalin, Suleiman, Suryavarman II, Zara Yaqob.

+0

Asoka, Churchill, Cyrus, Darius I, Elizabeth, Frederick, Gandhi, Hatshepsut, Lincoln, Mansa Musa, Pacal II, Pericles, Ramesses II, Roosevelt, Sitting Bull, Victoria, Wang Kon, Washington, Willem van Oranje.

It works along these lines:

• +2 leaders give each other a +2 bonus.

• +1 leaders give each other a +1 bonus (and a +1 bonus with +2 leaders)

• +0 leaders don't get a bonus.

It only works for the AIs (it doesn't apply to the player).

In your example with Hammurabi and Alexander, Hammurabi gets a +1 bonus to diplomacy from everyone except +0 leaders and Alexander gets a +2 bonus from +2 warmongers, a +1 bonus from +1 leaders and +0 from "peaceful" leaders.

 

I agree, especially Sitting Bull can be a real pain as his UB gives even further experience to archers (plus the xp from barracks). Add some dog soldiers to the mix and you'll have a very tough defense.

 

I never saw that show up on the diplomacy screen. Are the other hinder modifiers at play?

 

It doesn't show up but it's there. All the info I posted is from the reference guide and is based on the XML code. It's quite reliable.

 

All the Civs and leaders have their pros and cons (except Huyana Capac, who is pretty much all pros - as has been discussed elswhere - if you want an easy ride, choose Huyana).

 

Um... OK... I bulit the UN, and I won the election, but it doesn't seem like I can do anything. Do I have to open a screen to suggest proposals and such? What's up?

 

Did you just win the initial Secretary General election? Few turns after those elections you can (as the SG) automatically propose different resolutions - one of them is diplomatic victory.

edit: IIRC you can propose resolutions every 10 turn, but I have no idea how often the SG-elections are held.

 

Yeah, I won the initial election, but I haven't put any other resolutions up for a vote - how do I access the choices for what resolution to put forth?

 

Doesn't the game automatically throw up a window whenever you can put forward a resolution? At least it usually does whenever I build one (haven't you ever built one before, Aldeth?).

 

No - I usually turn diplomatic victory condition off - in most games it gives the potential for a cheap win by the AI.

 

You can't open up the options. The UN is very bureaucratic. It only brings proposals to the Secretary General's desk every so often.