Civ IV

Remove all ads!

Yes - Joacquin is right about the overseas colony feature of Beyond the Sword.

Henkie - what level will you be tackling next?

 

I'll probably start tackling Noble difficulty, as I understand this is where neither player nor AI get any advantages (well, aside from the stuff the AI is already cheating with). Haven't yet decided what kind of game I'm planning for.

 

Prince difficulty is starting to irritate me: I started an early war against my neighbour with superior quality and quantity army, but I barely managed to capture their capital (My axemen outnumbered their archers about 3 to 1). As I was attacking the last Arabian city, they started apparently getting free archers every turn. Population of the last city was 1, so they couldn't have hurried them. Anyways, I started attacking the last city - and I lost 3 units in a row, although my chances were about 70% every time. I don't like this kind of difficulty that much .

 

70% is not that good as far as odds go in this game. I sometimes lose units at 90% and more, the odds are weird in that game so you can't rely on safely winning even at 96% (although it happens most of the time and you can sometimes be surprised with much lower odds). Still, if you want to make sure your attack will succeed you have to bring more attackers than there are units defending a city (and I mean more -although 3 to 1 is a decent ratio a few more units never hurt). Especially if you don't have siege units yet.

By the way don't forget that Protective leaders like Saladin really boost defending units like archers making them much harder to rush before siege units are available. Plus axemen get a bonus against melee units not archers so that may explain why you lost so many of them.

Pre-catapults it's easier to attack non protective civilizations. Gilgamesh is probably the worse enemy to pick for a rush. But sometimes you just don't have a choice.

 

Yes, protective is a trait that was specifically developed to make the AI tougher - as it's next to useless as a trait for a human player's leader. Caradhras is right that it is very tough to attack a protective leader pre-catapults unless you have a major advantage.

But don't give up on Prince level. I think that it's actually the most balanced level. Remember that you are a human and infinitely more intelligent than the AI. You should be able to consistently win at Prince level without resorting to the sort of cheesy tactics and mindnumbing precision required at Immortal and Deity.

Just remember:
- stick to your strategy
- play to the strengths of your leader
- you always need more workers than you think
- you can always beat the AI at the tech trading game
- you're a better military strategist than the computer
- if you disconnect the AI from their metal and horses, they can't fight back very easily
- pick your Great People carefully
- only build the wonders you really need

 

I had both Cover and City Raider I - promotions on most of my units, but unfortunately Saladin had City Garrison II. I don't mind losing with the odds on my favour every now and then, but those free units started to tick me off. Now I know how the Romans must have felt when fighting against Asterix .

Just giving advantages to AI isn't the best way to make the game harder, but I agree that Prince is the most balanced difficulty as a whole. Noble in all its fairness is bit too easy for my taste.

Thanks for the tips .

 

Actually, I find that as long as most of the cities are on the same continent, that upkeep costs aren't out of sight. You definitely have to be smart and make a smart choice for your Forbidden Palace, and building Versailles is usually a good idea (although it requires getting the tech Divine Right, which is otherwise a completely non-essential tech IMO.)

I'm surprised you guys didn't know about colonies - it happens in nearly every game I play. I think the only requirement to making a colony is that you need to have at least two cities on a land mass independent from the landmass your capital is on. I agree that I don't see having a colony as a big benefit for you. They basically act exactly like an opposing civ once you create them, except that they have a very high favorable relationship with you. (Although if you're mean to them, their kindness is not limitless.)

 

State Property helps with managing costs.

I finished my Prince game with a space victory, it was a bit too peaceful (I took Genghis Khan's last cities with my tanks) but I got to experiment with great people.

I got 4 great prophets, 3 great artists, 12 great scientists, 6 great merchants, 3 great engineers, 4 great generals and 2 great spies. What really bothered me is that I had to keep an eye on my specialists because the game would switch between them when the population of a city would grow. Talk about micromanagement!

I'm not sure about the usefulness of some of them. Great spies don't look that good (granted I wasn't in a position in which spies could get me much). Great prophets are awesome early but rather useless later on. I must say that great merchants are very useful when it comes to pay for upgrades. I used my great scientists to build academies and get technologies. I wonder when it is better to settle them in a city. The bonus may add up over the course of the game so it may be better than to go for the quick profit of getting ahead with your research. I tend to play through the game without doing the math so I can't really tell. Any thoughts?

 

The really good players know exactly when they are going to get each great person and what they're going to do with them. If you take out the Great Artist fuelled Culture victory, the most common powerful use of Great People is to bulb a particular technology precisely when you need it. The best players can get amazing techs like Radio from being first to Liberalism on Monarch primarily by researching the right techs in the right order and having Great Scientists show up at just the right time to bulb the next tech in the sequence. This requires careful planning. If you research the wrong techs in the wrong order then your Great Person will bulb techs that you don't really need and therefore be wasted. Each Great Person has a tech preference list that they work their way down, depending on what techs you already have.

The best players work to the principle that "now is better than later" so they will almost never settle Great People. They figure it's better to have a crucial tech now when it can be used to advantage, than to have a steady stream of beakers over a long period, even if that stream ends up being in total higher than the beakers from the bulbed tech.

Effective generation and use of Great People is one of the major differences between people who win consistently at Emperor level and those who struggle at Noble.

 

Thanks Harbourboy, that is very insightful.

It seems to me that in my last game I was probably doing the right things for the wrong reasons. I'm still learning about making the most of great people so I find this question of timing particularly interesting.

I usually avoid using a great person to get a tech that can be researched right away and instead wait before using that great person. For instance if I get an early great prophet and don't need a shrine, I won't use that great prophet to get anything less than theology thus enabling theocracy and founding a religion at the same time. Unless I'm mistaken it seems that this is a rather sound strategy for a start and now I need to focus on "timing" my great people more efficiently.

To move beyond Noble (and possibly Prince) you really have to take these things seriously and get a comprehensive strategy for the game.

Anyway, that's food for thought.

 

Yes, that is something that I am trying to get better at as well.

 

On my way to winning my first prince game without cheating in a while. Started on a continent as England with the Greeks and as soon as they got their first hoplite they started bullying me while I only had warriors. They took a newly settled town on a chokepoint but I managed to beat off the *single* hoplite that was very close to wiping out my entire civilization. I managed to resettle the choke point and fill it with archers and axeman which I didnt get until iron working as I had no copper. Greece basically attacked me until I got redcoats and steamrolled them into submission capturing their heartland with two holy cities before I granted them protectorate status. I am the biggest and most advanced civ and I have a mutual defence pact with Persia who are second I have still not decided what I am going for but it usually ends up with a space race. I need to keep my tech lead while wondering if I should expand. I want the rest of the Greek lands as they were left with some prime real estate and I am getting annoyed by the occasional revolts and one of my settled cities on Greek land even defected to Greece.

The Vikings invaded several times from across the sea but I beat them back with little trouble although their sea superiority was annoying until I hooked up oil and smashed their massive frigate fleet with two rushed battleships. I fairly low in shield generation but high in trade so I hope my tech lead will be enough to build the spaceship before the AI. I am also interested in building the UN but I do not think anyone has the reputation to win by diplomatic means.

 

Good recovery, Jaocquin. Just imagine what sort of strong position you'd be if it wasn't for that early setback.

 

If Greece is your vassal, getting the Greek land will be hard. You can't declare war because they capitulated. The only option would be for them to break free from your rule. Unless I'm mistaken that can only happen if their empire grows much bigger or shrinks a lot. So what you can do is either let the Vikings attack them and take the Greek cities (so you can take them back for yourself) or you can attack the Vikings and let the Greeks take the Viking cities (or give these cities to the Greeks). Once the Greek empire grows big enough it will break free from your rule and you'll be able to attack them. If it gets too small it might capitulate and become another civilization's vassal.

The vassal system is really frustrating as it messes up diplomacy in many ways. Some leaders are pansies and will readily capitulate, it's not bad if they capitulate to you but if they do capitulate to an AI you're stuck if you didn't plan on declaring war on this AI. If the enemy capitulates to one of your allies you're stuck, if it capitulates to one of your foes you may get embroiled into yet another war.

Basically you have to check every turn so you can avoid the AI becoming another AI's vassal.

That's a pain. Not to mention the fact that investing time and effort in building good relationships with a civilization will amount to nothing if that civilization becomes a vassal. I had a game as Alexander in which I was best friend with Mansa Musa and on good terms with Victoria. We even shared a religion (I had the Holy City) and I tried my best to make Mansa Musa my ally. Then Victoria unexpectedly declares on Mansa Musa and in a few turns make him a vassal. That was already annoying but it got worse when Victoria who was pleased with me decided to attack me enlisting the help of my former ally Mansa Musa. Let's say that I had a narrow escape but I managed to take all Victoria's cities except one and I decided to keep her around as a vassal just to spite her.

With the vassal option on you can get some dynamic games and sometimes some AI can really make a comeback but I find that without vassals the game tend to be less frustrating and more fun as entire civilizations can get eliminated.

 

I will often play the game with the vassals option turned off, as I agree it can be a bit frustrating. Having sai that, if you're racing for a fast conquest finish date, you need to have vassals on, as it does save a lot of time when you can vassalise instead of having to take those last few isolated cities.

 

Diplomatic victory on Prince difficulty! Kind of interesting way to win, as it was a total wargame from 4000 BC. Actually I was a few turns away from domination victory also..maybe I shouldn't have built the UN .

Played with Stalin and pretty much just destroyed almost every civilization (French-Incas-Portuguese-Americans-and most of Chinese) one by one. Luckily my neighbours didn't come along very well, so I always had only one enemy to worry about. I got 5 Great Generals during the war-packed game, which got a bit tedious at some point. I imagine getting a "real" diplomatic victory (where someone else would actually vote for you) is a lot harder.

 

Congratulations!

Actually you may have the largest bulk of votes but it seemed to me that you couldn't get a diplomatic victory if nobody else voted for you. Anyone can confirm that?

 

Lost my game, stupid Dareius played me for a fool. We were buddy buddies the entire game and then he launches his spaceship a few turns before thanks for the free AI shields. He had started earlier than me but I thought I would completely outscience him and I do not know how I failed to do so, he had to wage a war against the Vikings mid race and I saw a gazillion Persian units running around. I would have won if I had chosen better cities for the engine parts but I really thought I was well ahead by that time. Just goes to show why it can be frustrating to play on anything harder than noble.

Started a new game out of spite this time as the Romans and things are looking good. Really good. I have a pretty shoddy position right between four other civs but it was the distant Zulus who attacked me, and then the Incans, and then the Carthagians and then well, you get the point. The Zulus are deadlast but they keep declaring war on people. The guys who programmed the Zulu AI sure made it psychotic but if their first few rushes work they tend to be unstoppable. I spent my Praetorian advantage on beating off Zulu invaders and now everyone is pretty equal when it comes to technology so no easy targets to pick off. Got a decent chunk of land, biggest on the continent but not as dominant as I like to be. I might make a push south for the French lands or I might just turtle and hope for the best. Fun game though. I am completely incapable of following an overarching specialty strategy I just want it all. I want the most culture, the most science, the biggest military, all of the wonders and the biggest cities.

 

Joacquin - you are right, the Zulu are programmed to be the most psychotically aggressive, along with Montezuma and Genghis Khan. Those 3 will attack anyone at anytime. The most likely to stab you in the back is Alexander. The most likely to start a religious war is Isabella. The one who will trade the most with you is Mansa Musa. You always want to have Mansa Musa in your game.

Caradhras - you can't win a Religious diplomatic victory by voting for yourself because the vote won't come up, but you can win a UN diplomatic victory although you have to have a pretty odd looking empire to not hit the domination threshold first.

 

Hey now, my empire looked just fine . The UN voting took place just when I had conquered 3-4 big cities, which were all still rebelling, but I think you get points from those cities also. I had 612 votes (603 was needed) out of 973. 3 turns later I would have claimed domination victory. Great timing .