Civ IV

Remove all ads!

Won my first game at Noble difficulty with a Cultural Victory as the Incas, epic game speed. The plan was to go to war early and take over my continent, and then turtle up for the cultural victory. The first part of the plan worked well. My early Quechua rush took out the Arab and German civs, and the continent was mine.

So much for Part 2 of the plan to turtle up. The rest of the game turned into a Grade A slugfest. The other civs were Boudica (who was eliminated fairly early), Shaka, Genghis, and Montezuma. For the first time ever, the Zulu were my best buddies, and we were mutual worst enemies of Montezuma and Genghis, who were pals as well. The map setup was I had my main continent all to myself, and I also had a decently sized second island with three cities on it. The biggest continent was immediately to the west of my island, which was shared by Shaka and Genghis. (I use the term "shared" loosely.) The Mongols were on the side that was nearest my island. The Aztecs eliminated Boudica fairly early and were on their own landmass, which was closest to the Zulu.

Basically, whenever someone went to war with anyone else, they would call upon their ally to help. Because of the civs involved, this resulted in all four civs being at war for the vast majority of the game. It also reulted in a virtual stalemate. There were a few cities that would change hands back and forth, but nothing much was gained by any side, until very late in the game. That's when Genghis made a concerted effort to take me out.

His attack was very sophisticated. In the very first round of the war, his bombers took out all three of my oil sources. (Due to the nature of constant war, and some helpful techs from Shaka, I did not acheive my cultural victory until well into the modern era, and so all the civs were using modern weaponry.) Once my oil sources were taken out, I moved some of my few Mobile SAM and SAM Infantry onto my oil fields and had my workers start to rebuild the oil wells. But the problem was I needed more tanks, planes and ships NOW, not in several turns until I got my oil fields up again.

I basically had to concede my three-city island, which is where Genghis concentrated his attack. The only reason I had settled that island at all was because there were sources of sugar and gems there that I didn't have on my continent. I lost two of my cities to Genghis, and finally brokered a peace deal by offering him the third city (which he would have taken anyway if I continued the war). I won the cultural victory a about 20 turns after that (which on epic game speed isn't that long).

I found it humorous that in a game dominated by war, I won a cultural victory. I also think it would be cool if the end-game movie for a cultural victory would reflect an actual city in your civ. The movie shows the Pyramids and the Collosus, which I had never constructed at all, much less in the same city.

 

War seems to be the safest way to achieve (almost) any type of victory.

 

I've won a diplomatic victory after destroying 4-5 civilizations. Al Capones quote in the game is very true .

 

Any game that has Shaka, Genghis, and Montezuma is going to have a lot of bloodshed in it. They are the three most aggressive leaders in the game. It's definitely possible and easier and faster to get a culture or diplomatic win without raising a finger in war . . . . but not if you have those three as neighbours.

The fastest possible culture win is in around 1200AD, but that's impossible if you mess around building units and fighting battles all the time instead of building religious buildings and raising Great Artists.

 

I actually erred in my previous post - that was my first win on PRINCE difficulty. The one thing I've discovered is that it is not particularly helpful to have a cultural leader to win a cultural victory. It obviously helps a bit, as you start generating additional culture in all of your cities from the very first turn you build them, but it seems the total contribution you get from the cultural trait is small in comparison to the total culture you need to reach the cultural victory requirment. I cannot imagine you'll get more than 5% of your total culture from having a cultural leader.

The other thing I'd like to do in future games is move away from selecting a leader with either the philosophical or financial traits. I'd like to develop a strategy that doesn't require use of either spamming GP or cottages. I'm just not sure where to go with it. I mean ultimately, I'm going to have to either build a lot of cottages or GP (via specialists) anyway, as those are really the only two ways to build an economy, but I'd like to try out new strategies that don't rely on expoiting one of those two methods.

Strangely, I thought my favorite leader would be Elizabeth, as she is both financial and philosophical, but I found her to be rather disappointing. The thing is, you cannot really half-ass your economy. A hybrind economy combining cottages and specialists is really no more effective the doing one or the other exclusively. The English have a decent UB and UU, so I don't mind playing them, but I don't have to take Elizabeth for that.

Any suggestions on a civ in which the leader is neither financial nor phiosophical?

 

Stalin is a solid wargame leader. Aggressive trait gives a small edge in early wars: experience from fast barracks and free combat I are lethal with early axemen, and Stalin starts with mining to boot. Organized trait supports the war theme, since maintenance will become an issue at some point. Cossack is a decent UU, but his UB is kind of useless as the game tends to be over before it's available .

edit: with bad luck (=no copper and Sitting Bull as your neighbour) Stalin isn't that great. Two rushed warriors should be able to capture a second capital in most games though.

 

In one of my more devious moves to see what winning in each of the available ways (Civ 3) I ended up starting a war with a weaker power that I had already weakened and then paid two smaller nations to join in.

I had already weakened the smaller nations to 1 city each through wars with them that I ended rather than wipe them out (I tend to like leaving factions alive if heavily disrupted/weakened). I gave them both a few cities I had taken on the continent with the power I was at war with (I was already doing this to avoid a domination victory as I had seen that ending).

Shortly after making sure they were at least somewhat established I made peace with the faction I paid the other 2 factions to fight.

Basically I started a war and then handed it off to the smaller factions I had already beaten so that they would be actively at war with the other remaining choice for leader and thus hate him more than me when it was time to vote on who would be the world leader.

It was technically a diplomatic victory but I don't think that was the way most people envision one.

 

Aldeth - when considering the pros and cons of each leader trait, don't underestimate the importance of the cheap buildings and units (not the unique ones, but the ones that each trait gets to build for half price). Sometimes, leveraging the impact of the cheap building can lead to a more effective strategy than one based around the other trait features.

 

I do. I like organized because of the cheap courthouses. The leader that gets you the most cheap buildings is Zara Yaqob, because he is both Organized and Creative. So you get cheap Lighthouses, Factories and Courthouses from Organized, and cheap Libraries Theatres and Colloseums from Creative. This bigger advanatage in taking a creative leader for a cutural victory lies more in being able to make cheap buildings.

While I have never done this specifically, I'd imagine the best choice for a leader if you were seeking a cultural victory would be Hatshepsut, because she's cutural and religious, so you'd get cheap temples in addition to all those other cheap culture producing buildings.

I'm also considering a same with the Holy Roman Empire. The leader has two traits that I don't normally seek out - Protective (arguably my least favorite trait) and Imperialistic. The way my games typically play out, I don't make much use of the protective leader's bonuses. For starters, I almost NEVER research archery, and so I miss out on the protective leaders bonus for archers, and I don't see enough advantage in city wall or castles to build them in all of my cities. Sure, if it's a city that sees a lot of battle because it shares a border with an enemy civ, walls and castles help, but a city that is in the heart of your territory doesn't need either.

While I'm typically not a huge warmonger, Imperialistic also allows cheap settlers, which I will obviously build several. And I like both the UU and the UB for the HRE. The UB is a Rathaus, which reduces costs by 75%. Building one of them is the equivalent of building a courthouse with an organized civ. Since I build courthouses in every city, and usually pretty early on, I'll make great use of this UB. And the UU is also pretty darn good. The Landsknect replaces the pikeman and still has a strength of 6, but it gets 100% against melee and mounted units, making it an excellent offensive and defensive option, and makes macemen virtually obsolete.

I'm also considering the Chinese, as that seems one of the few civs where you could actually leverage the protective trait well, through Cho-ko-nus. The Cho-Ko-Nus are one of the few offensive archery units, and while City Garrison I won't do you any good, First Strike is both an offensive and defensive upgrade. The UB for the Chinese isn't bad, although unless you were going for a cultural victory the bonus culture from a Pavillion may not be too helpful.

The last one I'm considering is Julius Ceasar. As I said, I like Organized, I like the UU, and the UB offers the possibility of being like a quasi-philosophical leader. Their UB is the Forum, replacing the market, and it has the very odd bonus of increasing the GP birth rate in cities.

 

One of the hidden benefits of Protective is what happens when you whip walls when you have stone. Walls are so cheap when you're protective and have stone, that you can get a huge overflow bonus that you can apply to other purposes.

The other poorly understood benefit of Protective is the power of the Drill promotions. Drill IV units are very very powerful and much easier to get for Protective leaders.

But other than that, Protective definitely looks like a trait that was designed to make the AI leaders more difficult to combat rather than helping human players with their game.

 

In a culture game I'd rank almost any Philosophical leader over Hatshepsut. Because a few more Great Artists give much more culture than being able to build 4 cheap buildings in 3 culture producing cities. Egyptian leaders are both spiritual, but they don't start with mysticism, which means there's very small chance for getting an early religion in harder difficulties.

Imperialistic is my least favourite trait. IIRC the first settler takes the normal time to build with Imperialistic, and after that they're not that expensive. I haven't played much with Cyrus, but his combination of Imperialistic and Charismatic could be efficient with a warmonger style; more great generals and more experienced units put together sounds interesting.

 

Hmmm... You're right. Well, philosophical and creative is also an option. Who has that? Pericles perhaps? That wouldn't be too bad either. The Greeks have a pretty good UU in the phalanx, as the bonus against chariots pretty much removes the only glaring weakness of the axeman in the early part of the game. You're still SOL if your neighbor is protective and has archers, but a counterattack from a chariot is no big deal.

I also agree with you that Charismatic, while it does not appear so by the name, is very much a warmonger trait. Sure, the +1 happy per city is nice, but if you don't go to war frequently, you cannot really leverage the bonus promotions you can get for your units.

As an aside, are all possible trait combinaitons in the game avialable, and do any two leaders share the same trait combinations?

EDIT: My favorite traits are probably financial and industrious, as the effects do not "wear off" as the game goes on. I do like philosophical, as such a leader would get their first few GP more quickly, but every time you make a GP, it take more GP points to build the next one, and so while a philosophical leader will always get more GP from the same amount of GP points as a non-philosophical leader, by late in the game, it isn't always a LOT more by late in the game.

Expansive isn't bad either, as you'll build granaries and harbors in nearly every city, +2 health is always useful, and you'll probably build more workers than any other unit in the game.

 

I'd have to say that spiritual is my favorite trait, followed closely by organized. Switching civics constantly is invaluable to me without stupid anarchy Organized rex and the ability to put off courthouses and use the hammers for military or other buildings is nice as well. I used to like financial the most, but i am finding that spiritual better suits my play style and is more versatile.

 

Financial is great because it's the ONLY trait that gets more powerful as the game goes on. The +1 gold for any tile already producing two is so overpowered that it is the only bonus given to financial leaders (you used to also get cheap banks which made it even more powerful).

 

I think that protective is underrated as you point out. I am playing a game as Saladin now, and protective has saved my ass. The cpu attacked one of my cities in a recent war. They had a solid 20 stack of knights , cats and a few maces. My city on plains with a few longbows eventually went down, but they basically put a halt to the computer seige. they had to spend at least 5 turns just to recover.......just enough time for my curisiers to retake the city easily...and then pillage fest!!!

I have also seen some players execute a drill attack force that was pretty effective on emperor level i believe. Though it is not the best of traits, there are good uses, even for a human player.

 

+1 happiness (+1 with monument) is useful if and when you'll go to longer war. Stonehenge would be a must for a Charismatic leader. As for promotions, Leadership taken as early as possible would seem to be a very solid choice for Great General units. -25% XP needed for promotion and +100% xp from combat would mean a LOT of promotions in a war game.

If my math is right, there would be 55 different trait combinations, while the game has (with BtS) 52 leaders. I don't think anyone has the same traits.

 

The problem with protective is that siege equipment is the great equalizer. If the AI brings catapults, trebucets, etc., and is willing to expend several of them to weaken your defenses, then you're city is going down regardless of your defenders (unless you have a ton of units in the city). For me, I never have a ton of units, as units cost money. Cities that are not in the direct line of attack typically are garrisoned with a single unit, and those on the front lines rarely have more than 3 or 4. Typically two defensive units, and one or two offensive units for counter-attack purposes.

However, the protective trait is not strictly a defensive trait, as you correctly point out, as drill works just as well whether your are attacking or defending, and getting a unit with a ton of first strikes makes them much more powerful than their strength score would indicate. (I suppose a Cho-Ko-Nu fully upgraded to Drill IV would have six first strikes.)

 

The real trick is leveraging each trait within the game optimally. In the hands of an expert player, each trait can be devastating. Never underestimate the slingshot benefits of the hammer overflow from whipping each trait's cheap buildings.

 

HB,

Can you expalin this more fully? I notice that when I whip completion of a building, I do get some additional production towards whatever I happen to decide to produce next. However, is there an OPTIMAL time to whip the completion of a building? I usually whip completion when I know the next population point will be unhappy, in which case they won't be working anyway, and the loss of population is not big deal. I surmise based on your statement that there is more to it than that.

 

I would like to hear more about this to. I noticed that the bug mod gives you an alert saying that you can whip. is this the most optimal time to whip, or is it just notifying you of when you can whip?