Civ IV

Remove all ads!

I usually play custom games, and I always turn diplomatic victory off. To me, diplomacy is not a big enough component of the game that you should be able to win just because other people like you. If that's your thing, then fine, but I cannot get excited to play Civ if the strategy is going for a diplomatic victory.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me Harbourboy.

@Aldeth: it's a matter of taste really, but it's fun for a change if you can get (almost) everybody to like you.

 

I recommend you try and win a One City Challenge diplomatic game just once. Diplomacy is a VERY important part of the game. Sure, you can ignore it and win at the lower levels easily enough but you have to use diplomacy as a tool at the higher levels. The ability to figure out how to get certain people to like you and how to get them to do things for you is a hallmark of how the great players play. The really good players can wage war without lifting a single sword in anger, simply by manoeuvring their friends to do the fighting for them. You'd be amazed the things that can be achieved (or failed) through diplomacy.

If you discount diplomacy, you are only playing a part of the game.

 

I'm far from being able to do that but I sure enjoy fighting fake wars to boost my relationships with my allies.

The trouble I have with the UN is that most of the time my rival for the election is my best ally. Since we both share the same allies and I don't get the warmonger respect modifier it's not that easy to get ahead unless I'm already much advanced in tech and population.

In early games when I don't have a religion and there is no large single religious block I've tried skipping state religion and get free religion as soon as possible. It allowed me more leeway to play the diplomatic game.

 

I'm not saying diplomacy is unimportant, and even playing through the game once is sufficient to realize that how you deal with rival faction's leaders makes a HUGE difference in how the game plays out.

I just feel that winning the game via constructing the UN is a cheap win. I will concede that I've never won this way, but the point is I wouldn't WANT to win this way.

I do use diplomacy to a limited extent. However, I find that the computer AI is a real nuisance when it comes to civs on your continent that you share a border with. I have found it much more useful to make friends that fall into one of two groups: A) Civs that share a border with someone I share a border with, but do not share a border with me and B) Civs with the lowest or near-lowest score, as they generally do not pose a serious threat to me. You just throw a crappy tech at them every once in a while, or gift them a fish resource that you have seven copies of, and they generally stay happy.

Civs I share a border with, inevitibly stab me in the back at some point. I just don't see the benefit of having any dealings with them. I won't even sign open border agreements with them, although I am willing to do resource exchanges with them - like wheat for clams or something of the like.

 

They won't all stab you in the back just from sharing their borders. Each leader has a specific different propensity for stabbiness. Alexander is the most likely to turn on you. Mansa Musa and Gandhi are least likely to in general circumstances. Isabella will never attack you if you have her religion as she has the highest religion modifier (positive or negative).

Having a blanket rule of "no trading with my neighbours" will hold you back. If you have Mansa Musa as you neighbour, you need to encourage him as much as possible because he can really help power your science progress as he'll trade more techs with you than anyone else.

 

Oh, to have a game where I share a border with Mansa Musa or Ghandi. I always seem to have Ghengis or Shaka as next door neighbors.

Regarding Isabella, while I didn't know that, it certainly appears to be true. I remember one recent game where I imported Taoism to her nation, and we both used Taoism, and on the diplomacy screen it said "We share a religion" +5 (!)

 

Aha, my Roman game is progressing nicely. I am bestest buddies with Shuwarma or whatever he is called and together we have spanked most other civs into submission so the two of us can rule supreme. Now I wonder when would be a good time to stab him in the back? His empire cuts me off from my newly conquered French cities. I want to keep the Incas alive as a buffert between me and the Zulus and Carthagians. Fun game this. I have spent more than a year fiddling with really custom games where I have cheated like a madman on higher difficulties mainly cause I like "perfect" cities even if they are created through cheating. Now I am rediscoring the joys of a "fair" civ game even if they AI is cheating as much as I have done in my first moments.

 

You know what? Maybe I'm just too nice. Maybe I should the war monger route. Pick a civ with a good early UU (the Romans are an excellent example, but heck, even the Zulu or Mongols would work (resources permitting), and just go bananas on anyone nearby.

 

Taking out your closest neighbour as early as possible is usually a good idea. One less rival, some prime real estate and even though you might lose out in the short term in the longer term you will have an edge over everyone. Why clear jungle when you can take heartland from others?

 

Try the Persians. A fast moving early UU like the Immortal is heaven for early conquest of neighbours. Actually, like the quechua, the immortal can be the only unit you need. It moves so fast, if you get enough of them, you can take over a whole continent long before Pikemen arrive.

 

Hmmm... and I believe I even like the leaders traits. One of them (I think Darius) is organized and financial, and the other I think is expansionistic and philisohpical. Both of which are pretty good. Although the decision may be smarter to go with the one (if either) start with the wheel as a initial technology - one less thing to research, and get to animal husbandry faster. Of course if there are no horses by your starting city, you are SOL.

Agreed, although I would need to build at least one worker, if for nothing else to access a needed resource. Unless I do quechas, I'll need bronze or horses.

 

Started a new game with Ethiopians, mainly because I liked the leaders "archaic tracksuit"-look . Great start: got 3 free techs from villages and 1 from Oracle to boot a.k.a. the stuff dreams are made of .

Do the different eras have anything to do with research times? I know that the amount of research needed grows all the time, but somehow I have the feeling that my research is always slowest in the Middle Ages (which would make sense). Or is it just that my civilization is always in the same expansion-followed-by economic-crisis-and-low-research-phase when moving to Middle Age?

 

Kullervo, it will almost certainly be because your economy has not kept pace with the times. Rapid research during this period is based on either having all your cottages up and running, effective farming of Great Scientists, not having too many useless cities (especially ones without Courthouses), and meeting as many other civs as possible for tech trading. If you are in a tech race (e.g. if you're aiming for space) then it also helps to get Great Library and Oxford University as early as you can.

 

That pretty much listed the things that I don't usually do . I have the bad habit of neglecting cottages in the early going and overemphasizing new, useless, cities. Maybe I'm just unconsciously aiming at realistic European Middle Age.

 

Finished my Roman game, took a bit longer than it should cause I bagged the theoretical win quite early so I slacked with building my space ship.

I am impressed by all of you who can go for conquest or domination victories on anything larger than a small map. Extended warfare is tedious! I enjoy a short brief war here and there, mostly they mean I have built three major stacks and blitz a poor rival in five turns before war weariness becomes an issue. How do you handle that? Is it police state and nationalism? I always aim for open enlightened socities, the bonuses are so tempting.

 

I don't know about the others but I use hereditary rule and a really big army to get happy faces.

In fact I rarely stray away from hereditary rule because it's a very effective way to control your population and having a large military never hurts.

It may have to do with game settings, I only play marathon so 5 turns is a very short amount of time at that speed.

 

But military units must be stationed in a city to get happy faces, right? Doesn't that mean that you'll have a lot of units just staying at home? But it's true, having a huge army doesn't hurt, with the exception of Pacifism.

Representation is ok during wars, since the +3 happiness bonus applies to those big cities where unhappiness is most likely to break out. Works well with Nationalism. Police state is almost useless IMO. I like my wars short and offensive, sometimes I make a short truce with the enemy to regroup and heal. The enemy won't pose a huge threat if he has lost his capital and/or major cities in the initial attack.

Apparently the world size modifies the war weariness: for example huge world has a +50% modifier and small world has +110% modifier.

 

Good point about world size. I only play huge as I find smaller maps to be too small.

As far as I can see it never hurts to have a large military provided your economy can support it. Even if they stay at home all these units count toward your power ratio and they ensure that your largest cities are well defended. It's also very useful when negotiating peace. Even if most of your troops are stationed in your cities, the AI won't make demands because your army will still be larger (or large enough) so that it can see that it's bitten off more than it can chew.

With a large military the AI won't see you as a pushover and you will have a much easier time building alliances. It also becomes easier to bring allies in a war when you're in such a position.

Only psycho leaders declare on you when you have the largest army in the world. This is rather welcome since when that happens you don't get the "you declared war on our friend" modifier to your diplomacy ratings.

Of course there is no point in having such a large force if you're not going to use it and if you do sooner is always better than later.

When waging wars I find that having a short term objective is always a good option but if it looks like you can go beyond this objective it's always best to go further even if it means lowering the tech slider (provided you get enough land from the war you will recover and become even more powerful).

I try to have at least one city continually pumping out units throughout the game because I always get swamped when I neglect my military. You can have all the culture, religions, techs and wonders it won't mean much when the greedy AI hordes will be unleashed on your peaceful cities.

 

That is one thing I have learnt in my recent "rediscovery" of the game. Anything higher than noble it is vital that you have a decent sized army and to have a specialized unit producing city with high shield count, academy, the national wonders for faster production and extra xp and it doesnt hurt with a GG or two stationed there either if you got them to spare. If that city is cranking out units all the time except for vital buildings you will have a good core to build around and a task force that can whip all but the most persistant invaders.