Civ IV

Remove all ads!

Indeed they are, and sometimes even a Forbidden Palace (and later Versailles) doesn't help the problem much. The one good thing that doesn't have to change in my strategy is I can still go for Code of Laws early, as I'm pretty darn sure that Writing is a prerequisite for CoL anyway.

I suppose if I want to minimize upkeep costs, there are a few other civs I could consider. I think the Zulu barracks gives a reduction to upkeep costs. And the Holy Roman Empire's courthouse gives a HUGE reduction of 75% to upkeep costs. (Which effectively is what you'd get from an organized leader and a courthouse in each city.)

 

Currency also helps in order to get your economy back on tracks. The only thing worse than expanding too much is expanding too little as more land means more everything. If you run BTS, spies can be really useful for your economy to recover by getting the right techs.

 

Just remember that there is no one perfect strategy. There are lots of different strategies (which is what makes this game so great). The main thing is to stick to your chosen strategy.

I look forward to hearing about your Prince level victories soon. I am playing a Deity level game at the moment, but it's not going so well. To win on Deity, you need to nail every detail. I can only manage to win around 1/20 of my Deity level games, so that level still represents a huge and fascinating challenge (for me anyway).

 

Yeah - you're right it's Prince difficulty. I think I said I was playing on Noble difficulty. I started a game last night, and I definitely need to fine-tune this strategy a bit. I got a bit unlucky in that I started on a not-so-big continent with three other civs. I play on the "small" map size, so there are only five opponent civs as compared to seven on a normal sized map.

To make a long story short, I think I'm going to have to start over. This was one of the few times where rapid expansion would have served me well, and I didn't do it. I have just three cities, and I'm in the central part of the continent. I'm completely surrounded, and I have no sea access.

 

Try and set yourself a specific challenging objective, like getting Code of Laws, Metal Casting, or Civil Service from the Oracle. One good way of learning is to save your starting position and if things don't go so well, go right back to the start and see what you could do differently. You then learn how seemingly small decisions can make a big difference. For example, if someone else beat you to the Oracle by 3 turns, try and think what you could have done to shave 3 turns off the build time (maybe by chopping one more forest, by working a mine for longer, by having an extra worker, or by hooking up the Marble sooner). These would be small things, but if they mean the difference between getting Oracle or not, they are a big deal in that situation.

Some of the really good players spend most of their effort on what to do in the first 5 moves, especially the decision on where to place their first city.

The most important part of any game is the first 30 or so turns. That sets up everything else.

I lok forward to hearing how you get on.

 

Isn't there some bit of luck involved with initial city placement? I never move my settler perhaps I should consider doing it, but losing a turn seems to me to be a huge waste. It seems that resources are modified around your settler's starting point by the map generator.

Say, Harbourboy, you stress the importance of the first turns, I know it depends on the map, but what would be the best start according to you? Start with a worker to improve the land right away or with a settler to get a second city started very early? I'm partial to the worker start but at times I wonder if it's even possible to get away with a slower development but a second settler (especially to settle some interesting landmark).

 

I think the starting point of the first settler is always a decent place to build a city, there's at least 2 resources nearby every time. Some luck is involved though: sea access, rivers, overall terrain (I hate jungle) and my favorites: the amount and quality of nearby tribal villages. My dream start includes getting one or two free technologies from villages .

Is it useful to build a worker first? Most terrain improvements aren't available immediately, even roads need Wheel iirc. I usually build another warrior first and settler after that, which isn't the best way to start either.

Come to think of it, I always play with the same -lacking- style. Too many cities too early, economic problems, weak military with little or no navy, emphasis on technology and culture. Usually my civ gets destroyed by aggressive neighbours unless it's advanced enough to fight back . In the 19-20th century I tend to destroy most (or all) other civs with a combination of sneak attack, blitzkrieg and superior military. But I have completed the game on Prince difficulty . Maybe it's time to try something else.. for real this time.

 

I never get so many free techs from villages. Must be my luck.

Worker first isn't that bad when you can use them as soon as you get them. Jungle really suck indeed. But by the time you get that first worker the border should have popped and you should have discovered the first useful techs to improve your tiles.

I don't know if better players more often resort to stealing workers from other civs. I'm rarely in a situation to do so.

I used to focus on tech and culture and completely neglect the military but my game has improved since I decided to pay more attention to that element. Constantly pumping out units from one city is a good way to prevent getting swamped -of course it depends on the map and diplomacy but a strong military often helps getting some respect from those nasty evil scheming plotting AI leaders.

 

Interesting questions.

From my experience, around 80% of the time, the optimal first build is a worker. The very good players will usually try to get more workers than beginners, and then choose those worker actions very carefully. An early worker steal can be a very good way to give yourself a kickstart whilst setting your nearest neighbour back at the same time.

Sometimes, a workboat can be a better bet as a first build.

If you're playing as the Inca, your first build will sometimes be a Quechua, the most overpowered unit in the game. The easiest way to win a game at Deity level, is to play as the Incans on a very small map, and build nothing but Quechuas and youll find that you can take over your neighbours with relative ease.

It is hardly ever optimal to build a settler as your first build. Settlers take too long, your capital can't grow for ages, and an early second city is often a drag on your economy.

But don't take my word for it. I suggest you start a game, decide a first build option and then play 40 turns. Record your status and then start again with a different first build and play 40 turns again. See what initial builds and actions put you in the best position at 40 turns.

 

I've tried both before and ended up picking the worker start but I tend to delay building my first settler especially if I'm going for an early wonder like Stonehenge or the Great Wall.

Having a worker to improve tiles, hook resources and chop a forest is a great help when trying to get an early wonder.

I usually have a hard time between building up settlers and units or going for wonders. Some wonders are just too good to pass but using all these hammers to build an army and expand your empire can really make a difference.

Do you group workers? It seems to me that it can pay off to get an improvement sooner instead of getting two improvements later.

Regarding work boats, I've noticed the AI often uses them to explore coasts. I never do that. I can see the benefits of planning the early settlement of other landmasses with a few units in a galley especially if your starting continent is getting crowded but that can really cripple your economy due to distance from your palace.

 

More interesting points. Workboat exploration is a good idea, if you know what you're looking for. One thing that gets you is contact with more other civs. This increases your tech trading options once you get Alphabet, and strategic tech trading is another thing that separates the best players from the average players.

On Wonders: only go for the Wonders that directly support your strategy. They are very expensive and you only want to get the ones you really need. Going for Cultural victory? You only need Parthenon, and maybe Sistine Chapel. Got a Creative leader? Then you don't need Stonehenge. Playing without barbarians? Then you don't need Great Wall. Also, base your Wonder choices on whether or not you have the supporting resource.

 

I typically go warrior then worker as my first two builds. The only exception to this is occassionally I'll build a work boat to access fish/crabs/clams.

I had my first real go of a specialist economy this weekend. I played on a standard sized map, but reduced the starting civilizaitons from 7 to 5. I decided to play as Frederick of the Germans, organized and philisophical.

A couple of points here - while I'm way ahead in the tech race, I actually have the next to smallest starting civ. No one has started a war with me though. I'm currently the only one with gunpowder, and as Sid accurately advises: never bring a sword to a gunfight. I still don't feel comfortable going on the offensive. I might be the only one with gunpowder, but musketmen are not a huge advantage against longbowmen.

I'm not sure how to work the civics to my best advantage yet. Getting representation was a no-brainer, for the +3 science per specialist, but I am not using the civic that gives unlimited specialists, which means most of my more cities (all that are decently developed) have two scientists.

In my capital, I have built an Acadamy, and have the wonders of the Oracle (although I had already researched Code of Laws when I finished it), the Parthenon, and I'm currently working on National Epic. I also have to build Sir Isaac Newton's University (I think that's the name of that wonder) once I get enough universities in place to make it available.

I have also discovered a semi-large unihabited island that I have to get on ASAP. The reason it's unihabited is obvious - I'm the only one that can reach it with the basic naval vessels, and since I don't have an open borders agreement with anyone, no one else can get there until they get with units until they get their hands on a galleon. One of my concerns is that later in the game I may not have access to a lot of the later game resources, and more land means more stuff.

 

Never tried any of the Civ games. The only RTS's I have played were the 1st 2 Warcrafts, Age Of Empires 2 with expansions(Loved it!) and an old one, Conquest of the New World. I enjoyed them all, though Warcraft was a bit "simple". Does Civ4 compare to any of these?

 

The civ games really aren't RTS games. In fact the combat is pretty simplistic, and is only one small part of the game. City and empire building, governments, diplomacy, and resource management are individually just as important - if not more so - than combat strategy. You can theoretically win the game without engaging in any combat.

Unless your opponents can build any unit other than warriors...

 

Conquest of the New World was that way as well. Diplomacy could get you by w/out fighting. I need to get a cheap copy and try it out. Are there expansions as well?

 

At least two. I know one of them is called Beyond the Sword, but there was another, earlier expansion as well. I purchased it, but I don't remember what it's called. I play BtS now.

 

Thanks, I'll have to check them out too. My brother has played some of the earlier Civs and talks highly of them. I have always wanted tot try them out, just never got around to doing it. Now, the key is freeing up some time....

 

I got my copy of Civ4 as a gold edition, i.e. including both the expansions Beyond the Sword and Warlords, for only 10 euros. So if you look around you should be able to find something for cheap.

It's a rather complex game, though, and, being new to the franchise as well, I'm still just mostly mucking about whenever I play it. I just don't seem able to create a consistent build for my cities, to specialise them properly rather than just building everything in every city in any order once it becomes available.

/edit
And it does consume a lot of free time, yes.

 

It's $36.99 here on SP. I'll have to try and find a cheap used version locally. I would love to support Tal, but I don't want to pay his whole salary! I did contribute a few coppers last week for a IWD2 guide....

 

Get Civ IV and Beyond the Sword, you don't need Warlords. The latest patch is 3.19 and the dvd doesn't even has to be in the drive with it.

I use the BUG mod which is a sort of better UI mod (no gameplay change).

Civ is not an RTS. It's turn by turn and it's very complex and can be played in many different ways.

@Aldeth : Quechuas are fierce, check a certain bonus they have... It was no jest on Harbourboy's part.

I agree that one should never pass an opportunity to get more land (unless when you're going for a cultural victory of course). Not only the resources will make up for the costs but if you don't expand you really need a huge tech advantage to face some late game giant sized AI civs. And by huge I mean nukes and at the very least infantry.

Funny thing, you didn't sign open borders? How did you manage your economy? Did you go for mercantilism?