Civ IV

Remove all ads!

With Gilgamesh it's a matter of reputation, he's the only Sumerian king whose name rings any bells. Ragnar is a bit odd choice though as he isn't that famous IMO. I believe both are accepted as historical figures, even if there are some fictional texts about them. Most, if not all, viking sagas have some narrative elements in them anyways.

 

If we're going to complain about the Civ's leaders. I disagree with the choice they made for the Dutch ones. William the Silent is, of course, a must, but I've never heard of Adriaen van der Donck and Pieter Stuyvesant wasn't important for Dutch history. Those two were important for the New Netherlands so they were simply selected from a US-centric viewpoint, and not a Dutch one. I'm not sure about which Dutch leaders should have been included instead of them, but Willem Drees, Maurits van Nassau, Willem III van Oranje, Johan de Witt and Johan van Oldenbarnevelt are good choices to start with.

Edit:
Okay, so only IGN is claiming that Adriaen van der Donck and Pieter Stuyvesant are available as leaders, and everyone else says that only Willem is. Is IGN crazy or is everyone else? (I will get the two Civ4 expansions with christmas so I can't exactly check now without ruining christmas spirit.)

 

Willem van Oranje (the Silent I assume?) is the only Dutch leader in CivIV. Adrien van Donck and Peter Stuyvesant are the Dutch leaders in Civ4:Colonization, which is a different game.

 

There's only one Dutch leader in BtS, and he's Willem van Oranje. Warlords doesn't have the Dutch empire, so I'm guessing that IGN is crazy.

It seems rather pointless to discuss the historical validity of any of the leaders, though. Before any of that even comes into play, there's already the huge inconsistency of having fairly modern day leaders and nations start their empire all the way back in 4000 BC. Most modern countries are only a couple of hundreds of years old, if even that, and here we're placing them in ancient history?

 

For some reason I kinda liked how it was in the first Civ where only at their times really dominant or influential civilisations got a spot. Vikings, Dutch, Native American, well the list goes on with Civs that never really accomplished much or influenced the world all that much. A case can be made for all of them but it pales in comparison to Rome, China or even the US.

 

I remember in one version, you could even choose Australia as a civ. Australia!

But back to the strategy questions. Yes, the civil service slingshot is devilishly hard in Beyond the Sword (it was easier in Vanilla). So you only go for it if you have everything in your favour. Things that make it easier are gold and/or gems in your capital BFC, plus marble that can be hooked up early, plus not having an aggressive neighbour hassling you early on, plus lots of forests to chop to speed up the build once just as you get the last of the requuired techs in. I've seen it done on Monarch level a few times recently. Going for it is always a risk because you might be up against someone like Ramesses he will usually manage to build it before you if you wait too long. The Code of Laws or Metal Casting slingshots are still really useful, but I wouldn't bother with anything else.

EDIT: I've just done some research and found that it is theoretically possible to get Education (!!) from the Oracle on Immortal with the right set up, using Egypt's obelisk to run early Great Prophets to bulb Theocracy and Paper for you. Needless to say, this is well beyond my Civ IV capabilities.

 

On the topic of leaders, I dislike the choices for China. Both Qin Shi Huang and Mao Zedong admittedly achieve great things, but both were also terrible tyrants - Qin Shi Huang famously tried to control knowledge and dreamed of living forever, and, well, let's not talk about Mao Zedong. There were other Emperors who ruled much more peacefully and prosperously. Kangxi, in particular, is commonly regarded as one of the greatest Emperors in Chinese history - pretty much the perfect leader. It seems that the two present choices are just selected because they mean most to the Western audience.

Speaking of which, I really hate Ieyasu Tokugawa's reluctance to sign open border agreements. Yes, it reflects the policies of Federal Japan, but that law was not instated by Ieyasu - it was instated by his grandson. Ieyasu himself was not a xenophobe at all and in fact even had a foreign adviser (William Adams). I know the leader is more supposed to represent the country rather than the individual, but it's still annoying. It's interesting, btw, that Civ depicts him as a gaunt man - pretty much every other depiction has him fat, which is partially based on historical truth.

 

OK, I played a game on Noble with the "Hemispheres" map, which I liked quite a lot at first. Basically there are two distinct groups of islands/continents on the map separate by ocean. So you start with two or three rival civs relatively close by, and another two or three civs that are farther off, which due to the ocean, you won't have contact with for a long time. I went with a random leader, and got Kublai Khan. The game went really well until I made contact with the other half of the world.

I was assuming I was doing well, because I was in an absolutely dominating position against the two nearby rival civs, the Romans and the Egyptians, and I had already eliminated the Portugese early on with Keshiks, and the Romans only existed on an island since I had taken over Rome and all of their other cities using macemen. I actually timed that rush perfectly - Rome was researching civil service and would have had macemen of their own in just a few more turns. I rushed in with about eight macemen, and took their only city that had access to iron, so even when they got civil service, they weren't able to build more macemen. I then proceeded to take over all the rest of their cities except the one on the island. (Which I wanted to take as well, but evidently, the Romans built a good number of triemes, preventing me from easily attacking by sea.)

But then I met Ghandi and Mansa Musa. All I can say is HOLY CRAP! I don't know if they were trading techs from the beginning of the game or what, but they each had about 10 techs that I had not researched yet. I mean, what the heck? I had invested heavily in libraries, even built a few confucian monestaries, and was running my science rate at 60% or 70% for the entire game (except in the beginning when it was at 100%). I concede that I didn't trade many techs with my neighbors, but that's because I was in such a dominating position that they didn't have many techs to trade. I was trading things like Archery for Masonry, and Writing for Monotheism and stuff like that. About the only tech of significance that the Egyptians discovered before me was Construction (the AI seems to prioritize that tech).

I don't think I'm going to finish this game, as I don't think I can transition this late into a cultural victory, which is pretty much my only shot at the moment. I can try to go diplomatic, but Rome and Egypt already hate me from the wars and will vote for anyone who isn't me, and Ghandi and Mansa Musa are best pals, so the one would likely vote for the other, so I think I'm toast if I go that route.

Geez, with these requirements it makes it even harder, as we have to add Mining, Masonry, and Bronze Working to the list of required techs. None of them are monstrously expensive (Mining and Masonry are actually fairly cheap techs). But still that's adding even more turns to when you can complete the Oracle. And those are rather strict requirements. Most games you do NOT start with a source of marble nearby. It's one of the more rare resources. Gems also aren't particularly common, and often occur in jungles making them inaccessible early on. Gold at least is fairly common, and since it usually occurs on bare hills, it accessible as soon as you get Mining.

So basically, I need everything I normally would require when doing the Code of Laws slingshot, but I would additionally need to have researched Code of Laws and Mathematics. Marble doesn't even seem to be particularly necessary though, now that I think about it. The trick is not in the amount of time it will take you to build the Oracle - it's getting the techs you need before you finish the Oracle. Not having marble isn't the worst thing in the world because you could start construction of the Oracle well in advance of having the needed techs, although timing is obviously critical - you don't want to finish it too soon.

Speaking of the Oracle - for financial leaders would spending the Oracle on Currency be a decent idea, or is it relatively cheap enough that you wouldn't want to "waste" it on that?

 

Gilgamesh is the only Sumerian king that I know of. Ragnar Lodbrok was a king and not just a warchief but there were other rulers that could have been picked, I would have preferred Harald Bluetooth for instance.

I think that putting the US as a civ doesn't make any sense. To be fair, I think that having the French or the English starting in 4000 BC doesn't make much sense either and they have a much longer history behind them.

The truth is that what the game calls civilizations are not exactly that. They're nations.

Starting in 4000 BC I usually go for ancient civ and skip all modern nations (Celts instead of the French and the English for instance and Native Americans instead of the US).

Modern Germany doesn't have a long history as it dates back to 1871 but that didn't prevent the game developers from including Frederick II of Prussia as a ruler for Germany which only makes things even worse when you start to consider the Holy Roman Empire which still existed at that time. So why separate Germany and the Holy Roman Empire if you assimilate Prussia and Germany? Charlemagne was king of the Franks and he is considered as a German king by the Germans (Karl der Große) and a French king by the French (Charlemagne)... He was the first Holy Roman Emperor but Charles V would probably have been a better choice for a leader in the game.

I also find amusing that the Celts have Boudica for a leader. Boudica wasn't that successful. Going for unsuccessful leaders one could have picked Vercingetorix who at least succeeded in uniting the Gauls. Talking about semi-fictitious leaders one has to mention Brennus who seems to have been included only because he defeated the Romans and took Rome.

That's utterly silly. If you include Australia then you can make a case for every nation to be included as a different civ.

 

I agree. Slightly off topic... While I understand that there were Celtic peoples all across Europe (in fact I believe the Celts originated in western/central Europe), I primarily coinsidered the Celtic civilization to be the Celts from the British Isles. However, I have no idea if that is how most people consider it, or if they are simply the most famous from an American perspective due to our English roots. I know that it was certainly possible to be from Gaul and be a Celt, but it just seems strange referring to Brennus as a Celt.

 

Aldeth - what we really need is a way for you to share that game file with us so we can comment specifically on it. At Noble level it should be easy to catch up with civs that have managed to become more advanced than you, by researching specific techs that you can use to trade the backlog for. If they are 10 techs ahead of you then that's 10 techs you don't need to research yourself any more.

 

Right, but my plan was to get liberalism and democracy to enhance my science output, but those are many of the techs that they have already, including Paper, Education, and Liberalism.

 

Most people probaby think of the Celts as being from the British Isles which is not true. The fact that there are places where Celtic languages are still spoken in the British Isles, Brittany and especially Ireland doesn't mean that the Celts came from these areas.

Gauls were Celts but all Celts were not necessarily Gauls. Brennus was a Gaul and therefore a Celt. The UU is named Gallic Warrior and the capital is Bibracte which is located in France (in Burgundy).

 

I did not know that. I assumed Bibracte is/was a real city, but I did not know where it was located. I did some research on the Celts, and it turns out they simply define a Celt as any group of people who spoke or currently speak a Celtic language. So it is not even specific to a particular geography or ethnicity. It turns out that the Celtic people were a lot more wide spread than I thought. From the article:

I knew about Ireland, but I didn't know they got to Spain, or as far east as modern day Turkey!

Also, perhaps my thinking of them as primarily from the British Isles is because that is where Celtic traditions persisted well into the Middle Ages, and one of the few regions where people still speak a Celtic language today. Also from the article:

 

Your knowledge of history astounds me.

And Vercingetorix wins extra credits for having a name that sounds like it's straight out of Asterix and Obelix That aside, from what little understanding I have of history, I always thought that large parts of current Germany and Netherlands were also celtic.

/edit
Aldeth seems to have confirmed my suspicion even while I was typing this post.

 

For the record, when I posted that Bibracte was the capital, I meant the capital in game, irl it was the main city of the Aedui ("Eduens" in French, it took me a while to find the English name using the link Aldeth posted) one of the most important Celtic tribes in Gaul.

I had a teacher at university who told us that the name Galatasaray has Celtic origins.

French comes from the Latin that was spoken in Roman Gaul and as such it was deeply influenced by the original Celtic languages that were spoken in Gaul before it became a Roman province. Modern French has little in common with Gaelic though, but I thought I'd point this out anyway.

Names in Asterix are a mix between real names and puns, they look like actual Gaulish names while having a modern meaning which can be misleading. Most Gaulish deities that are named are genuine Celtic gods like Belenos and Toutatis.

 

This is getting totally off topic, but I must show of my (limited) historical knowledge too: the name Russia comes from the Vikings. A group of Vikings, or Varyags if you will, who spread to east were know as Rus as their place of origin was Roslagen (in modern day Sweden I believe). They settled the areas of modern day Ukraine and Russia and some of them reached as far as Constantinople (Byzantium). But probably most of you, at least Caradhras already knew this .

I might be wrong but didn't Vergincetorix appear in some Asterix comic?

 

I didn't know about the origin of this name even if I've read about Vikings going East.

Stories in the Asterix comic take place after the defeat at Alesia so Vercingetorix only appears in flashbacks showing him proudly throwing his weapons at Caesar's feet (irrc they have him literaly throw his weapons at his feet in the comic).

The true Vercingetorix was a great leader who managed to gather an incredibly large army (300,000 men is the largest estimate but it was probably less) when the Gauls were divided into bickering tribes and sometimes allied themselves with the Romans to use them against their rivals. Vercingetorix used guerilla warfare and relied on scorched earth to harass the Roman armies before cutting them off at Alesia when Julius Caesar was trying to retreat towards Rome. The beleaguered army lead by Vercingetorix sent away the population from Alesia to save food for the warriors and Caesar didn't allow them to cross Roman lines so the civilians ended up starving between the city walls and the Roman lines. The problem for Vercingetorix was that since he was besieged inside the city he couldn't direct the Gauls who were attacking the Romans. Since the Gauls who were to rescue Vercingetorix were lead by three warriors with the same rank you can imagine how well that went when they faced the Roman legions who were largely outnumbered but did manage to build up fortifications to defend themselves from both sides. In the end, Vercingetorix died in Rome after having both his hands cut off and being shown off through the streets of Rome.

Anyway, even if he is not included as a leader he appears as a Great General in Civ 4 which is rather fitting.

I don't get why the Arab civ has only Saladin as a leader. He was a Kurdish warrior not an Arab but he must have been quite a leader and I can understand why the developers decided to make him the leader of the Arab civ. After all Dante included him in the Divine Comedy despite the fact that Saladin was a Muslim and not a Christian and despite the fact that he had been dead for less than a century when the Italian poet wrote his masterpiece. When the Crusaders had taken Jerusalem they had slaughtered all its inhabitants but when a century later Saladin captured the city he let its inhabitants walk away unmolested and later on despite the Third Crusade he allowed Christian pilgrims access to Jerusalem. Still, I'm convinced Harun al-Rashid would have been a good (if not better) alternative since no other leader could better represent the heyday of the Caliphate and the epitome of Arab culture.

I've just realized how long that post is. Sorry I really got carried away this time...

I know this is slightly off topic but it's always been part of the enjoyment of the game to me and I did learn a few things playing Civ 4. For instance, I had never even heard about Mansa Musa before playing the game but then again, in Europe we tend to overlook Sub-Saharan Africa as it tends to be overshadowed by Egypt and Ethiopia.

Back on topic: It would be great if Aldeth could upload his save somewhere so that we could have a look at it and take advantage of HB's suggestions to learn a few tricks.

 

The Arab civ is really the muslim culture of the middle ages and there Saladin is quite fitting. If they should give them another leader Muhammed would be rather suitable, prophet or not he was a great warlord who united warring tribes and turned them into an army that swept across much of the world creating a culture, a civilization, that stands to this day. I do think including him would create more ruckus than it is worth, especially the leader portrait.

 

That's why I see Harun al Rashid as a possibility, he ruled at the time Charlemagne ruled in Europe so it coincides with the apex of Arab civilization and this period was probably a major influence in the writing of the Arabian Nights (by that I mean the Abbasid Caliphate which was based in Baghdad).