Civ IV Tactics

Remove all ads!

Stationing a unit in the right place(s) wil remove the fog of war, and prevent the barbarians from respawning.

 

just the thread I was looking for. I'd gotten bored with civ 4 cos I cruise the game at noble level but can never make it over the mid difficulty level. Every single game I get my ass thrashed. I can never resolve early expansion with the whopping cost of maintaining a large empire in the early game.
I only got to page three, but I can see I'm going to have to pop back and read further when I have more time.
Has anyone ever won it by a culture or wonder victory? I managed to get a diplomatic victory at noble level, but that only worked after the third vote when I'd expanded enough to get a large enough block of votes to virtually ensure election by myself. I've tried playing a completely peaceful game, and managed to maintain peaceful and friendly relations with all of my fellow civs up until election time but never been able to get victory beacuse even though I'm liked by my fellow civilisations, when it comes to the U.N. and elections they all abstain or vote for the opposition.
The wonder victory seems its impossible unless your playing at a very easy level, or you trash all your competitors and grab the wonders they've built. . but then ..I've found when I've been trying to grab all the wonders a domination victory or a U.N. victory has always come first.
It's an odd game. I loved it when I first started playing because it seemed so complex and varied. I'm not so sure now . . if the only way to victory at the hard levels is still just by conquest and extermination.

 

The highest difficulty I have even successfully completed the game on is also Noble. And the only time I have been able to win on Noble was a space race victory.

As far as cultural victory goes the general strategy is as follows:

1. Found 3 different religions. This is most easily accomplished by going straight for Hinduism (Buddhism is almost always founded first, but you can get Hinduism if you select that as your very first technology). The go for Code of Laws immediately after that for Confucianism. And then immediately after that go for Philosophy (for Taoism). Obviously you aren't going to have a lot of good combat units, as you'll be skipping iron and bronze working, as well as archery, so play nice with your neighbors.

2. Get at least 9 total cities. It doesn't matter if you do this by founding the cities yourself or through conquest - just make sure you have at least 9.

3. Use missionaries to spread all three religions to all 9 of the cities you will be using. This is essential. If you have more than 9 cities, you don't have to spread to religion to all of them, but each religion must be present in at least nine cities.

4. Build a temple (or temple equivalent) for all 3 religions in all 9 cities. For every 3 temple equivalents you build you are allowed one cathedral (or its equivalent). Thus, you will be allowed to build 3 of each type of cathedral.

5. Pick three cities - ideally the holy cities for each religion, but if two religions happen to share the same holy city, you'll need to pick an alerntaive, and build all three of the cathedral equivalents in each of them. The holy cities are the best choices because you can also build the special wonders with a great prophet in those cities. Thus, at least three of your cities must have all three religions. So when you spread religion, even if you have more than 9 cities, make sure that the three holy cities (or the one you select as the thrid) have all three of the religions. Do this early enough, and with a minimum investment in culture (10-20%) and you'll easily reach cultural victory.

[ October 06, 2006, 17:47: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

I am having some problems on Prince as well. I just despise fighting while there is still stuff to build in my cities. Units feels like such a wasteof time and resources. Which leads to me having a very nice and developed heartland, decent technology and a pretty weak military. Wars just tend to be so tedious. I like building. Anyways I tend to be highest on points but when it comes time to wrap up I lose out. Last game there was two continents, I had taken one of them completely and three big civs shared the other and they were the best of chums sharing resources and research so one of them could build the space ship before me. I saw it coming too late and my invasion force just wasnt ready.

 

The Site where I get my information tends to talk more about the fine art of warmongering. Perhaps if you have one or two cities building military (switching them off as stuff gets built) all the time you'll have a reasonable military, to deter invasion. When someone does, strike hard and vengeful, trash and burn their cities and improvements (unless they fit your expansion plans) as you go. It hampers them worse than it hurts you. When you are boxed in (and it will happen), target your aggressions to which city you want to take and when.

It's almost impossible to win on higher levels without at least one war...

 

hmmm. it sounds good on paper but in practice . . i don't know. I'll have to check out the website.
the culture victory tips sound good. I'll try them out.
I have the same problem as joacquin. IN civ 2 and civ 3 I always expanded from the year dot, either through settlers or wars, and was able to occasinally beat the computer at emperor level. but civ 4 at prince level, I find I can't expand at the start cos it costs too much. Then I spend most of my time trying to play catch up on the technology tree. By the medieval period when I can afford to expand, I can take on and conquer the weaker nations. So my points end up being tops, but as soon as I take my eye off the technology ball, ie start building units and not banks, universities etc the more advanced nations disappear into the sunset of the Apollo programme and it's game over.
What I like about it is that it's different to civ 3. They've tried to bring in interesting elements like religion. It just seems weirdly balanced. Noble level is a cake walk. Prince is next to impossible.
Maybe I'm not thinking outside the box enough, making good enough use of the new game aspects, specialists and religions . . . I dunno.

 

When you want to fight, just raze what you don't want/can't afford and trash any terrain improvements and whatever. Use that money to bolster your science. Code of Laws and Currency will enhance your finances and you can build a larger empire. It's a slower process, but it provides an appropriate challenge...

 

I play only custom games now, so I can remove the time and space race victory conditions. It's just to easy to win on either method. I'd much rather shoot for domination or culture. Plus, I hate scrambling to beat the other civs with a space race before the time victory clocks out. Any time I go for space race, I'm usually 10 or fewer turns away from a time victory anyway, so there's little point.

I pretty consistantly stick to Noble nowadays, though haven't dared yet to venture higher. I find games that are too difficult to be unfun.

Yes, I just said unfun.

 

I'm making a stab at Prince difficulty. I chose Mansa Musa of Mali for my leader. The financial trait should help me keep up (or even a little edge) technologically, the Spiritual trait helps me switch civics as needed without losing production or research to a revolution, and the Skirmisher will nerf an early axe rush, and slow swords down big time.

I had an early break by popping Bronze working from a "goody hut", had stone near my capital which I exploited for the Great Wall, got the Oracle (I chose Metal Casting to get my UB, the Mint, basically a forge that adds 15% to my gold in the city), then when I got a Great Engineer, the Pyramids had already been built, and other wonders didn't excite me, so I used him to get Machinery.

My first war was one I started, taking a city that England put exactly where I wanted to build. I started some troops towards London, but the Vikings declared war. England really didn;t want to continue the fight, so I agreed to peace with them. I also got a city from the Vikings and am massing my forces near a second Viking city as I called it so I could have a break.

Tomorrow afternoon or evening I'll go back for another round...

I'm not finding myself behind technologically, and I can keep pace militarily by using the terrain to best advantage. When I build my cities, I make sure that in a war they can all produce military (and ready the whip if I get in trouble), so I keep up nicely.

 

I, too, have found there to be a pretty steep learning curve between Noble and Prince difficulty. On Prince I can ONLY win if I go for a space race victory. I also like to play custom games because I hate to lose a space race, and I think it's equally cheesy to win via diplomacy, although that is the one way I've ever been able to win via Monarch. In that game, I was going to lose the space race to the Indians. I had a couple of smaller civs capitulate to me, so they had to vote for whatever I voted for in the UN, and it gave me a diplomacy victory. The victory was so hollow I didn't even enjoy it. I knew I cheesed it, and so I can't say I've really ever beaten Monarch difficulty.

 

Well, I found that getting caught with opponents on both sides was not nice. The Vikings kept the war going long enough to put me behind the 8 ball technologically.

Second try, I found that only Rome hemmed in by me, Shaka and Ghandi in the large wide part of the continent and Tokugawa at the far end.

Ghandi is the only one out teching me, but I'm holding my own in power once a war elephant rush eliminated Rome from the continent. They have at least a city somewhere else, but since I've fully settled the conquered lands, I'm not worried. I'm thinking that once I get my research up where it ought to be, Ghandi has a holy city with shrine right on my doorstep which makes a tempting target for next time...

 

Ok, I've developed a new love affair. Three words:

INCANS, INCANS, INCANS.

I've never played with them before, and they are (imo) ideal for my two favorite practices - early conquest (with their kick-ass unique unit) and wonder production (with their Industrious trait).

I always overlooked their unique unit (the Quechua) because they're the first unit in the game (thus quickly becoming obsolete) but I never stopped to look at their innate bonus. 100% vs. Archers and 10% strength right out of the gate! That's killer. The technique I've found (and used successfully 3 times in a row now) is to ignore exploring right away in favor of building up about 5 Quechuas. By the time you've done this, you should have a good idea of where your first rival is. By this point the AI only has 1-2 warriors defending the city, and it's far too early for Axemen or an expansion city (provided they didn't get a Settler from a goody hut). Even if the rival has researched Archery and has the city properly defended, the Chechua's 100% vs. archers nullifies their advantage. Taking the city is a breeze.

The rival is wiped out in one stroke, leaving you their entire area to build out, hog their premium resources and they leave you a free expansion city to get started with. This is especially advantageous if you're playing a fractal/water map (which I always do) and you end up alone on your own continent.

In the immortal words of Little John..."YeeeAYeah!"

 

Yup. Quechua rushes kick ass. In fact, any civ with a unique unit that can be acquired early are good rushable. A similar tactic can be used if you paly the Egyptians (War Chariot) or Persians (Immortals). However, both of these unique units are based on the chariot, and as such, they require you to have horses to use them. So, if horses aren't available in your capital city's radius, that theory is out the window. In the time it takes you to build a second city, get horses hooked up, and produce some chariots, the early rush opportunity is lost. So by far, the best immediate rush unit is the Quechua, as they require nothing other having the Aztecs as your starting civ.

Also, building 5 Quechuas immediately isn't all that bad of in idea. It allows your capital to grow in size, and you can usually quickly make up the time when other civs are making settlers and workers. Actually, to be honest, I usually do NOT build workers and settlers immediately. It stops growth in your capital, and IMO, it's a pretty bad idea to start building those units until your capital hits at least size 3.

 

I'm finding that if you organize it right, Rome can be vicious with a Praet Rush. I had three or four failed attempts, but this time I really rode the Praet rush hard, eliminatiing the Vikings and Aztecs, and am considering gunning for HC next to keep my science from going totally in the toilet after the wars and the four cities I had to keep (three holy cities and one that fit the dot map). I'm building courthouses to reduce the upkeep, and am researching currency (but that will slow down fast when the spoils of my war with Monte runs out). I may be able to win this one before Maces! This would be on prince...

 

And on that Ironic note, seperating Chruch and State has yielded some pretty cool results for me. By selecting no state religion (and thus forgoing OR or Theocracy), you enjoy a reduced upkeep cost in your cities, and gain cultural boosts from all religions present while gaining the boost from ALL holy cities you control instead of just one. makes cultural victories more feasible. Any more, the only time I do go for a state religion is when I expect a hard fought war and need Theocracy.

I also finally added my second win at prince level today with Japan. Basically I tried a strategy of small wars to get elbow room only when I was ready to expand. This was working just fine with brief skirmishes with India and the Ottoman Empire, but went out the window when during the second campaign against India they became a vassal state of Egypt. So I went down, smacked Egypt a bit, then they paid me off after India ditched them for a deal with the Ottoman Empire. When I was getting the edge on the Ottomans, India went crawling back to Egypt. A I was running a second punitive campaign against Egypt, and getting running India and the Ottoman Empire out of their starting turf, Carthage came at me from another flank. The moral of the story is that Samurai kick ass...

So I go back to war with the Ottoman Empire while continuing to punish India for their insolence. Long term peace with India would be unfeasable because they had a couple main cities pushing my border cities with huge culture and were settling closer, threatening to push them into revolt. India's first deal with Egypt came just as my first Samurai were coming online. The conquest win came as I was researching Gunpowder. Mind you this was around 1500 AD because the conquests and constant war put my research into the tank with little break to let my infrastructure catch up...

 

When you invade another country, is it better to get them to capitulate or just wipe them out entirely? What are the pros / cons of either?

 

You're definitely right about pros and cons. It depends on what your priorities are, and what type of victory you are working towards. Obviously, if you're going for a domination victory, vassalage isn't the way to go.

When a nation capitulates to you, they become a vassal state. The are four big perks to this: 1.) They can never declare war on you as a vassal. 2.) They will always vote the same way as you do in any UN votes (helpful if going for a diplomatic victory) and 3.) They will always be "allied" to you in any wars, meaning they'll help fight some of your conflicts. 4.) You get a percentage of the vassal's score added to your score.

Naturally, there are also some cons to this. Two biggies here. 1.) You pick up 50% of the foreign nation's upkeep costs every turn, yet you don't collect taxes from them. This usually means that your vassal states result in negative income for your civ. It kind of makes sense though, as that's how any vassal agreement works. 2.) And this is the more important one IMO, the initial vassal agreement lasts 20 turns, after which, it is the VASSAL'S decision whether or not to remain a vassal. If they chose yes, you're stuck with them for the rest of the game. Regardless, you never have the opportunity to get rid of a vassal. It doesn't make sense that the nation that capitulates has control of this, but that's the way it works.

Basically, there are three victory conditions that lend themselves to taking vassal states: Diplomatic, Score Based, and Spaceship (seeing as how the vassal has no chance of matching your production). That being said, it is also logical that certain victory conditions do not lend themselves well to vassalage. Obviously, if you're going for domination or conquest victory conditions, the vassal state is naturally an impediment to it. Also, because of the increased cost of vassal states, cultural victory is also more difficult (as more of your trade goes to taxes instead of culture).

 

Actually, Half the Vassal's area and Populatin count towards your totals for a Domination victory, and any vassals gained through Capitulation count as eliminated for a conquest win.

I do accept capitulations if I don't see a reason to continue kicking their teeth in, and only once has this ever led me into another war...

 

Strange, i've had a vassal turn on me - it says something along the lines of (x)vassal has revolted against you... then he defected to the enemy.

 

That's because of con #2 I listed above. After a set number of turns (I think it's 20, but I'm not 100% sure) it is the VASSAL THAT GETS TO DECIDE IF THEY REMAIN A VASSAL. So yes, it is possible for a vassal to turn on you once the prescribed number of turns are over.

Gnarff, thanks for the additional info. I knew you got part of their score, but I didn't know part of their population and land area counted towards your population and land area.