Civ 3 is so much better right?

Wrong. All your strategies have stopped working and now you're sad because you have to learn a new game. But if you can stop being proud for just one second and read on -- or even just experiment -- you might learn a few things. And once you understand the method to Civ 4's madness, you'll start to love the game.

Civ 4 is a vast improvement on Civ 3 because strategy matters more than a recipe book.

1) Tip One: Expand, Expand, Expand!!!

The first thing you should do is turn your main city into a settler factory. Try to build as many cities as possible to grab as much land as possible. Be sure to build the occasional unit to defend your outermost cities.

If you don't get your third settler killed by a barbarian, you'll find that this surely puts you in a losing position by 250 AD, with your tech rate hovering around 10%, and the AI several techs ahead. Congratulations, you suck at Civ 4!

There are a few reasons why fast expansion is bad.

- Maintainance (more cities leads to a lot more maintainance!)
- Lack of improvements (if you're not generating a profit now, you can't afford to take on another city)
- Barbarians (yep, once barbarians discover archery and bronzeworking, they become a fearsome sight)

Not only that, but you don't NEED to expand like hell. Other than expansion, the following things generate money/research: religion, specialists, cottages. I won't say more than that. Having lots of cities isn't the be all and end all.

2) Tip Two: Micromanage Like Hell

As you approach the completion of a building or unit, be sure to juggle around your tiles so that way you don't overflow. Same thing with your research rate. By lowering your research rate before discovering Meditation, you can make sure that the AI discovers buddhism and you get left with jack squat.

Yep. You played with overflow, and actually paid the price.

Overflow is no longer something you have to juggle, because overflow isn't discarded, it's added to the next thing you build/research. Moreover, you WANT lots of overflow. In my experience, an AI got buddhism instead of me because I lowered my tech rate on the last turn of meditation. I reloaded, didn't lower my tech rate, and presto, my nation was the holy land of buddha.

3) Tip Three: Try to Grab All the Wonders

All the wonders are useful so try to grab all of them. Once you build your first, try to build all the others. Once you lose that one, take your excess cash and try to build another wonder. Once you lose that one, take your excess cash and try to build another wonder. Once your cities are without any kind of infrastucture, grab your ankles and brace yourself for Caesar to hit you with his Praetorians.

You simply cannot build all the wonders. Industrious civs will have an advantage on you. And marble/stone are also very helpful. And if you're not one of the first people to discover a tech, you can forget about even trying to build the corresponding wonder. You have to know what wonder will help you the most and plan towards it.

Not to mention that in the time it takes to build all those wonders, you could have libraries in all your cities and all your tiles improved. Or you could be the first person to have 8 horse archers. Wonders aren't the be all and end all.

4) Tip Four: Generate Lots of Cash and Buy Techs

Lower your tech rate to 0%. Absorb lots of cash. Now contact the AI. You can buy your first tech!

But wait, you need the alphabet to do that. So scratch that. Beeline to the alphabet. Now lower your tech rate to 0 and start buying those techs.

But nobody will sell you anything good, right? That's because the AI knows that their tech lead is more important than any amount of cash you can give them. They want to finish that wonder first. They want to keep you in the stone age while they get medieval on your buttocks.

The AI's tendency to hang onto its techs means that 100% research and trading for smaller techs won't work

How do you get around this?

THINK HARD. What technology do you REALLY need?

5) Tip Five: Keep the best defender in your cities, and pump out lots of the best attacker on your conquest

Swordsmen are the best attacker. And this game is exactly like Civ 3 -- your best defence is a good spearman. Keep two or three spearmen in each city, and build a stack of swordsmen and go after the AI.

Alright, so you just found out that your spearmen and swordsmen are incredibly vulnerable to axemen. Axemen have 5 strength to a swordsman's 6, but they gain huge bonuses against other melee units.

Building only one unit type is a surefire way to get yourself killed. Because that means the enemy only has to build one unit type to stop you. And the defender has a huge advantage from tile bonuses, city bonuses, and getting to 'choose' the ideal defender against whatever attacker you use. Attackers need to be SMART.

Read the manual. Really look at those units. Try to figure out the best counter for each one. And there IS a counter for each one. The line between offense and defence is blurred, too. Consider a defensive catapult waiting behind your city walls. Consider an offensive spearmen, to provide your marauding swordsmen a defence against war elephants. The more you mix your units, the harder it is for your opponent to deal with your case.

And a stack of units is expensive. You can't just keep them on the shelf. You have to use em.

6) Tip Six: Play the same way every game

Now that you've read these tips, you know a surefire to win every single Civ 4 game. A strategy that always works.

And that's "adapt". You need to be responsive to the situation on the ground, or else you're about as smart as a speak & spell.

Look at your starting technologies. Each Civ starts with 2 free techs, and they're never the same. Consider this your Civ's unique advantage. More than Civ 3, there's no surefire best path anymore. Which means that any techs you have give you an advantage towards SOME later tech that offers you some kind of benefit -- a religion, a new unit, a wonder, a key tile improvement, a building... You just have to figure out what tech you can get to first that will give you an early advantage.

Look at your traits. You have an advantage. Use it. As a philosophical leader, you should ask the best way to start generating great people. As an aggressive leader, you should ask yourself when you plan on attacking. As a financial leader, you should figure out how to start generating cash as soon as possible.

Look at the AI opponents around you. Genghis Khan is likely to pick on you. Isabella cares a lot about what religion you are. You need to address the strengths and desires of your neighbors, or else you'll find yourself very vulnerable.

The Summary

Snarkiness aside, if there's one thing that's still true of Civ 4 that was true of Civ 3 is that the early game is very important. But try not to think in terms of fast expansion. After seeing my units go on strike, this is the best advice I've come across.

Technology is always important in Civ, and in Civ 4 it's even more important. Getting your research roaring has little to do with holding an 100% research rate all the time. And fast expansion chokes your research. Put two and two together: if you're not pumping out settlers, there are lots of other things you can do to further your society's progress.

Yep, there are very few actual concrete tips in here. That's because it's been less than a week with the game, and I honestly don't know how to be the best.

But I do know how to be bad at Civ 4: play like it's still Civ 3.

Very good article! I've been enjoying the game but keep finding myself leaning toward things I'd do in Civ3.

This is a new game and stands well on it's own merits.

Brilliant well-written article congrats :goodjob: I don't have the game yet but your article will be taken into account during my first game.

The biggest criticism that Civ4 is getting is that its NOT Civ3, but its not supposed to be!!! The sooner people realise that, the sooner they will start enjoying this NEW game.

Excellent read. I believe a lot of people end up disliking improved versions of games because of the "unlearning" you have to do. The system is deeper and requires more playing and less memorizing. Simply put, Civ 4 is a superior game to Civ III.

:goodjob:

I was going to LAY INTO YOU at first, since I scanned and read the bold. Thank goodness you were just being funny.

And it was a funny article. I enjoy making fun of those who don't adapt, even when it's myself.

Yeah. I have to say, I'm really making fun of myself. I'm guilty of trying all of the above strategies in one way or another. Civ 4 is just a different game -- and that's for the better.

I've been playing my first game of civ4 for about 3 days now.
And started out very much in the dark of what to research next and what to build in my cities.
Slowly I'm getting the hang of it, and "lets play another turn" is taking hold of me (need sleep!!).

Good post: don't cry just play.

Lets face it somebody who is playing civ IV for the first time with out playing any of the others in the series won't have the learning curve we will.

ie break old habits.

great post

Excellent article... and so very true.... I'm in my first game and saw fast that over extention can lead you into trouble... But Expention IS POSSIBLE... you have to be smart... and that why we all loved Civs game.... its another step ahead in smartness land!!!!:goodjob:

omg leik, tihs post duznt tell m3 h0w 2 b good @ civ 4. ju5t h0w 2 b3 bad. u phail.

Epic,
wonderful post well written

And when you do expand, look for where the resourses are. The more cities you have, the more expensive your civ is, so make sure that your city will net you some goodies (preferably multiple goodies). Later, if you build near the enemy border, make sure you have a Great artist. The Culture bomb trick really does work. I got a Barbarian city and a german city easy like that.

Secondly, build on your strengths. As the Arabs, try to monopolize on holy cities. You'll get a but load of great prophets to rush the religion specific wonders, then still get a few great prophets to act as super priests.

Third, remember their UU. They will want to use their UU as much as possible. The Malinese have a replacement for Archers. Giving my Swordsmen and Axemen "cover" (+25% vs Archery units) helped me over come that. Making my Horse archers immune to first strikes also worked to neutralize that edge. Also, if you can hit their suply lines (chariots and horse archers work wonders there), you lower the class of units they have (without iron or copper, they have warriors and archers, without horses, they have no cavalry, no Ivory, their war elephants don't get built). What I did was one city building Swordsmen, one building Axemen, and one building Keshiks (when I finally got horses that is).

I have yet to find much use for cash. Upgrading units is expensive as hell, and when I get better units, send the old ones to die taking the fight to the enemy.

With technology, be-lining is more important now than ever before. For the Mongol's it's four steps to their UU. Make them fast and give the enemy hell. Bronze working and Iron working also are vital, especially to a warmonger...

Production is key to any effort, military ot cultural, so make sure that you have cities that can build stuff fast...

Played a very short game today... very short because I conquered three of my neighbors by 1AD. By then I was being overrun by barbarians and too poor to upgrade my warrior hordes to something that can kill an axeman. My tech was down to 10%, my neighbors were leaving me in the dust tech-wise, and there was no real prospect for improvement. It's a very, very different game than Civ3.

The game I'm in now I'm leading comfortably at the same stage. With three cities. A very different game.

I'm glad people are enjoying this little article.

Especially note Gnarfflinger's advice: you have to make those cities count. Don't just expand for the sake of expanding, but see cities as an opportunity to grab key resources.

Today I won my first conquest victory at monarch, and I didn't build my second city until 0 AD. There's a lot more to the game than land-grabbing. Try fewer cities rather than more -- that's the best advice I can offer.

In my first game, I got what seemed to be a poor starting location (lots of desert and hills). I was the Arabs. I nabbed an early religion, and went the culture/science route. My immediate neighbors were Cathy and Washington. Cathy expanded phenomenally fast, but had a VERY weak infrastructure. Washington stayed middle ground the entire time.

By 1300AD I only had six cities, but I was the tech lead and had an impressive amount of culture in my cities. I know now in that game, if it had come to war, I would've lost a city or two at first, but by concentrating on a small amount of cities, it wouldn't have taken me long to bring a superior military to my enemies' doorstep.

All in all, expansion is NOT a very good policy in cIV. I've also learned that there really isn't such a thing as a bad starting position anymore. You just have to know how to use it to your advantage. And I'm still trying to get the hang of that.

I've yet to actually complete a game. I'm having too much fun in the Ancient/Classical/Medieval periods learning the tricks of the trade, so to speak.

I'm still working on my first game, and I have to say, I did all those same things too. :-) That's what happens when you spend literally 100's of hours playing Civ 3!

And actually you do give some good advice. Just like real life, it's important to know your neighbors. You mention to play your leader's strengths, I agree. You should also play your neighbors weaknesses and be aware of their strengths so you can neutralize them.

I'm really impressed with the updates on this one. It's much more of a learning curve than the transition from Civ 2 to Civ 3, which I like because I feel like i'm getting my money's worth. It's going to take me awhile before I figure out how I like to use missionaries and Great People.

I think the game was a tad rushed (witness the bugs), and I was worried that certain areas of game play would be susceptible. My fears were unjustified. The new gameplay and concepts are awesome!

I can't wait for the SDK to come out! There will always be things we don't like, so they gave us a way to improve the game on our own. I'm looking forward to tweaking the game!

Awesome article. I'm still trying to unlearn Civ3 strategies too - pumping out settlers hasn't been doing me any favors.

As a good experiment, I suggest waiting until your capital can't grow anymore before you build your first settler. You'd be surprised just how much further you can get in the tech tree this way -- since you don't have to deal with maintainance costs.

The key to taking this strategy is you have to get techs that let you do something with your first city. Worker techs like Pottery and Agriculture. Or Masonry or Writing to give you some buildings to build. Or, hell, head for horseback writing or iron working if you think you can wage an effective early war.

(Speaking of early war, it's much easier to wage an early war if you don't build too many cities of your own. I just won a conquest victory on a small monarch map and I didn't build my second city until 1000 BC -- choosing to conquer other peoples' cities first.)

My only game so far has been a continuation of the tutorial and I'll second most every thing you've said. A couple of things I tried to do.

1. Be very picky on where to place cities. Look for resources and try to found next to a river. That provides an instant trade route and will allow farming around that city, not to mention the defensive bonus.

2. Building a settler/worker costs only production time (no population drop), so let the city get bigger before building those units.

3. Specialize cities, one for military units (barracks there) and one for wonders (stone/marble nearby).

4. Secure new resources before trading the tech that unveils them to prevent your neighbor from getting there first.

What I'm still trying to figure out is:

How important exploration beyond the local area is?

How important is it to make sure your cities form a connected empire.

What the important technologies are.

For those unable to get Civ 4 yet, try out Rise & Rule (see Civ 3 mod pack forum) to get a feel for some of the new techs & wonders.

I've yet to actually complete a game. I'm having too much fun in the Ancient/Classical/Medieval periods learning the tricks of the trade, so to speak.

Heheh, good to see I'm not the only one that starts & abandons lots of game. I think the furthiest I've played one was to the point where I discovered gunpowder. I had planned on playing that one further, but made the mistake of playing on a huge map and when I traded a distant civ for their world map my system started lagging. So no more huge maps for me until I upgrade.

It definately took me a while to unlearn some of my Civ3 habits. I am really starting to enjoy playing with the specialists and the great people and religion and...well you get the idea.

1. Be very picky on where to place cities. Look for resources and try to found next to a river. That provides an instant trade route and will allow farming around that city, not to mention the defensive bonus.

I've only started a couple of Noble games after starting (not finishing) the tutorial. I'm not sure if it's okay to stretch to get a resource or if you still need to chain out.

2. Building a settler/worker costs only production time (no population drop), so let the city get bigger before building those units.

If I understand, the health level affects the current growth rate. It seems there should be a sweet spot on where to build the settler with respect to food, health & growth, but then I'm not sure how to figure maintenance into that decision.

3. Specialize cities, one for military units (barracks there) and one for wonders (stone/marble nearby).

I believe marble & stone only have to be on the trade network and not necessarily "near" the building city. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. (Maybe that's why I missed a wonder?)

How important exploration beyond the local area is?

Good question. I've been assuming exploration is very important, but all my activities so far are focused around my cities, and I was able to get open borders to unfog my opponents' areas after Writing. And if my opponents are around my scouts have less barb fighting to worry about. In my current continents game I sent off a galley with a scout, but since I can't enter ocean tiles I think it's a waste of time as I've already unfogged most of what I think is the entire continent.

Sure, I know where lots of iron and copper is, but I'm not expanding that way that fast. Again, I wonder if it's advisable to send a settler to a remote site. So far having one city back another up doesn't seem as crucial in this game.

What the important technologies are.

They all are, I guess. I'm wondering if the "best" strat will be to specialize based on early game conditions (resources, traits, terrain) until Alphabet and then trade for the rest. Fishing and agriculture are easy to skip if you don't have the needed resources, but so far I keep bouncing around to pick up every little worker action, unit and city improvement thinking they'll come in handy. I'm getting the feeling I'm wasting time.

For those unable to get Civ 4 yet, try out Rise & Rule (see Civ 3 mod pack forum) to get a feel for some of the new techs & wonders.

I haven't played RaR, but I've skimmed a few SGs using that mod. While learning cIV I keep thinking the RaR players will be the early strong players because a lot of the new game concepts seem similar to RaR.

if you build a religion shrine, always build at least one monastery of this religion so you will be able to spread missionaries even when there won't be monasteries anymore...
In my game i found 6 religion (you know what, i play on settler my first game). I miss three kind of monasteries so i can't spread them anymore....it means there will be less gold from shrine if you don't spread them

just my two cents

The techs you really need depend on your playstyle.
- If you're trying to found as many religions as possible, aim for religion techs.
- If you're aiming for a specific wonder, try to get its tech.
- If you're agressive, military techs like Military Tradition are high priority.
- If you're cultural, techs that enable culture buildings
- Going for space, you'll need scientific techs, ones that provide science building, and SS techs.

@LAnkou: Yes, spreading your religion can really help both your income and relations. I just couldn't agree less with your sig :)

What I'm still trying to figure out is:

How important exploration beyond the local area is?

You need to explore your local area because you always need to have a plan for where you'll put your next settler. You also should have a plan B and plan C.

But beyond your local area, there's some value to exploring beyond:

- Contact with other civs (vital to stay involved in tech trading)
- Goodie huts (can sometimes give you a free tech -- more often with scouts)
- Making enemy cities visible, so you know exactly who is building what. Instead of "Pyramids were built in a far off land" you'll know "Pyramids were built in Athens" and you need to watch for Greece.

How important is it to make sure your cities form a connected empire.

This isn't too important... until you're at war. Then it becomes really easy for your enemy to isolate a stray city and go to work on it, while the remainder of your empire tries to cross 'no man's land' to get there. You can get away with this sometimes, but don't get carried away.

Other than that, it's important to make sure there's some kind of trade route between your cities. Sailing enables trade routes across coastal tiles -- that helps a lot.

Otherwise, you may need an open borders treaty with that civilization that divides your territory. Stay on good terms with them at all costs.

What the important technologies are.

Whew. You could probably write an entire article per era on what the important technologies are. I've found some strategies that work, but honestly, ALL strategies work -- and all strategies don't work, to a great extent.

I will mention these key technologies though:

Alphabet: You don't have to get this right away, but I like to get it before any of the AI civs do, so I can steer the tech trade in my favor before anyone else gets to it. If you get alphabet and one other expensive tech, you can often trade for all the techs you missed before.

Writing: There are at least three different paths to writing, and writing leads to the alphabet. The way I see it, this suggests that there are at least three viable starting strategies.

Bronzeworking: You don't have to get this right away, but you do have to get them sooner rather than later. If you take too long, you won't be able to find out where a source of copper is. And the AI will capitalize on your weakness, if the barbarians don't do it first. Spearmen are key to take down mounted units, and axemen are both a great offense and great defense.

The sooner you discover bronzeworking, the sooner you might be able to find out that copperis scarce. In which case, ironworking becomes an even higher priority. Don't get caught without metals -- it will be your own damn fault.

Archery: Sometimes you can put this off or ignore it until you get to alphabet. Archery is easier to ignore if you have bronze hooked up early. But you can't ignore it forever.

Every other ancient technology is useful. The key is not getting caught up in getting every single one, because at alphabet you can trade for the ones you missed. There are multiple ways to get to writing-->alphabet, so you need to figure out the one that makes the most sense for you in this particular game. This will depend on your traits, your starting location, your starting techs, and your overall approach. I seldom grab more than 2 or 3 worker techs, and the ones I do grab are different every time depending on what resources are nearby and how early I've built a worker.

Man, you really can speak volumes about tech choices.

I should also say that on archipelago, the value of archery and bronzeworking go way down, and sailing becomes vital. The reverse is true of pangea.

You always have to be sensitive to that starting location.

Nice article, amazingly no one in the community (or at least the vocal community) didn't miss the sarcasm. I was actually surprised there were no noob accusations, "this advice stinks", "lol u contradicted urself", and etc.

But playing devil's advocate, I have to say that just because a game is new and requires new strategies, it does not necessarily mean it is fair or balanced.

Agreed Spec, but as with all new games, these issues will appear as the game and competition level matures. Hopefully Firaxis is open to patching MP balance issues that might arise.

One thing I've tried the last couple games is to build a worker first then my barracks. This lets me start laying down my roads, and as I get the techs to exploit my resources, I can capitalize more readily. Further, by the time my baracks is built, I have Archery, and am working on Bronze Working to set my defenses.

If you want to go warmongering, any cities that you want to have building units need Baracks and if you have the tech, forges. Add in Theology and State religion, Police State (if you got the Pyramids, of course) and Vassalage, and you're pumping out units quickly with two promotions on them, and after a couple fights will hit a third promotion. Aggressive Civs get Combat 1 free (on melee and Gunpowder units), so it's like three promotions free and a fourth not far off. This means that your archers to defend new cities can have City defence 2 if you want, or maybe better odds against what you expect to see attacking.

Remember when you attack, you will always see the unit with the best odds against your attack. Don't neglect cover and Shock in those circumstances.

More on early exploration after a few hours playing:

Unlike Civ3, when an opponent settles a city in an area that you've explored but is currently dark you don't see it on the map.

So far--playing Noble, continents, standard size and normal speed--I think thorough early exploration is wasteful. I've been doing it, but about the time I've mapped out the whole continent I'm pushing out a galley or I already sent off a work boat to map the coast. I haven't yet had problems getting open borders with civs I meet early, so I just get open borders so my boat can paddle around the continent. Then I realize I can send a fast unit (scout, horse, whatever) through their civ. Unlike earlier civs they won't get in your way; just walk right through their workers, military and cities as you explore their recent additions to the empire.

In my next game I'll systematically unfog the areas where I may reasonably expect to send settlers but send only one or two other explorers (meaning warrior or scout) just to quickly tromp across the continent to meet the enemies and get a rough idea of where the ends of the continent are. I'm not sure you even need to meet the enemies, but it seems like if you meet them earlier your relationship goes up over time just by knowing each other. But again I haven't had trouble getting open borders around galley time even when they think my state religion is hethan.

I just recently got to caravels and made it to another continent in my latest game, and one of the civs allowed open borders, but 2 or 3 others didn't. "We don't like you enough." But I had an Explorer, and I think from the description that it can go into other civ's borders, but I stopped the game before I could verify that. Anyway, if you wait a long time and have a hethan religion you'll get the cold shoulder on new contacts.

EDIT: I was wrong about Explorers...they can't go into other civs' territory without open borders. It's caravels that have the description which makes it sound like they can sail through other civs' territory, but I haven't tested that yet.

More on early exploration after a few hours playing:

Unlike Civ3, when an opponent settles a city in an area that you've explored but is currently dark you don't see it on the map.

So far--playing Noble, continents, standard size and normal speed--I think thorough early exploration is wasteful.

Other than that, yeah, not building too many cities is key. I remember being at +6 GPT before my settler built a city, and -15 after that ! That hurts. I was going to loose a lot of money to make that city profitable, money much better spent on keeping a high science rate, for instance.

And really try to make the most out of your traits.

Oh and one last thing : when you are trading resources, you can actually trade resources you have only one of, meaning that YOU WILL LOOSE THAT RESOURCE FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRADE.
I found that the hard way trading my only coal :lol:

While anyone that has actually played the game understands this article despite its unusual writing style, it might be better to rephrase it in a "Myth: Fact:" format instead of "Tip #1: (false statement) (true statement)"

I believe marble & stone only have to be on the trade network and not necessarily "near" the building city. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. (Maybe that's why I missed a wonder?)
They don't have to be in the "working" radius...but you can't build a quarry outside your cultural borders. :lol:

While anyone that has actually played the game understands this article despite its unusual writing style, it might be better to rephrase it in a "Myth: Fact:" format instead of "Tip #1: (false statement) (true statement)"
Excellent note, Puppeteer. :thumbsup:
I agree with the suggestion of Randle. Myth might be better.

Love the Article Dh_Epic! It is excellent - exactly what my experience has been.

Excellent note, Puppeteer. :thumbsup:
I agree with the suggestion of Randle. Myth might be better.

Sometimes, sarcasm is the best way to convey a message. Dh_Epic does it sarcastically but powerfully.

2. Building a settler/worker costs only production time (no population drop), so let the city get bigger before building those units.


However, have a look at the "Worker-Chop" strategies in the the main Civ4 strategy forum. Bronze Working + Worker + Forest to be removed apparently can jump start unit and city improvement production.

So, again depending on your starting position, an early worker (not settler) might be a good idea.

Lauer: A good technique, but one that needs to be prudently applied. For a city with excess food, those 2 hammers per turn for 100+ turns are much more valuable than a single 30 hammer burst.

So, what you're saying is, Civ IV, though it will crash your system, is superior to Civ III, which did not. Gotcha. Thanks for the tip.


Later!

--The Clown to the Left

I think it's obviously true that you want to get a worker out and chopping sometime in the ancient age.

If you're in good position to take a religion, though, and want to pursue a religious strategy, you might want to postpone the worker. Let your city grow first, produce more commerce, then produce a worker later when you have more improvement-techs like animal husbandry, pottery, or bronzeworking. Sometimes I even postpone a worker until I'm close to researching the alphabet, at which point I can trade a tech like monotheism for lots of small techs.

If you're in good position for a horse archer or chariot rush, you might want to postpone that worker until you have animal husbandry (and roads to hook it up).

Or if you're a financial civ, sometimes it's smarter to go for pottery before you produce your first worker. Sometimes.

But if your best shot is to go straight to bronzeworking off the bat, and you're not interested in horses, cottages, or religion... you can get to producing a worker in 4000 BC.

There are multiple strategies that work in this game. I've seen people win with them all, at high difficulties too.

So, what you're saying is, Civ IV, though it will crash your system, is superior to Civ III, which did not. Gotcha. Thanks for the tip.

First off --

Crashing your system isn't inherent to Civ 4. I bet a patch will be out soon. I think it was a bad move to release the game before Christmas. And the end result is the game won't really feel complete until December, when things are much more patched up.

Secondly --

Civ 3 DID crash your system. It took many patches to make Civ 3 work.

Unfortunately, you just have to be patient. It's working great for me, but I can understand how it isn't for you. Hang in there.

There are multiple strategies that work in this game. I've seen people win with them all, at high difficulties too.
That right there--the fruit of a whole lotta play-testing and balancing--is the single greatest improvement in Civ IV.

And it's not just that there's a greater variety of strategies that can win the game. It's also the fact that most or all of these strategies can also yield a loss, if they're attempted in the wrong conditions.

Brilliant.

So brilliant, in fact, that when the game crashes to desktop once every hour or so, I don't get upset...I just reboot, take the opportunity to get a glass of water or use the bathroom or whatever, and resume.

(Now if the game were dying on me every ten minutes or so instead, well that'd be a bigger problem...but I've been lucky enough to have reduced my problems markedly by trying a few carefully-chosen tech tips from the forums.)

-- Kevin

I actually strayed too far from CivIII strats in my first game of CivIV. In CivIII it as all about having the most units for war. Stacks of doom worked best when they were overwhelming. I knew they were trying to decrease the number of units so that the game would be faster. So, I was not building a large military. I was using combined arms but just not many thinking I did not need many. Decided to test the combat system and invaded a neighbor. I discovered that I was using way too small an army. I took one city but quickly lost momentum due to the resistance I was facing.

Let it be known that you can use less units in CivIV than in CivIII but be warned: Do not try to do war on the cheap. Make sure you have all the units you need to counter the enemy units and make sure you have reserves.

It makes war more an exercise in intellect than in brute force. Which is great for people that love intricate strategies.

This is just a side note, but I rolled back my Ati driver to the previous version, and haven't had a crash since. Its been so wonderful, because like you i was putting up with it cause I like playing the game. But man, no more reboots. I'm in heaven!

Lauer: A good technique, but one that needs to be prudently applied. For a city with excess food, those 2 hammers per turn for 100+ turns are much more valuable than a single 30 hammer burst.

Very true. :goodjob:

That's why I suggested to read the worker chop related threads. They contain a plethora of very good information, which cannot be easily summarized in 2-3 sentences. The decision, to chop or not to chop, has to be made taking into account your style of play, the early game strategy, your neighbours, the level of forrests you want to retain tor reap their benefits later in the game (i.e. when lumbermills become worthwhile), and so on.

The beauty is that you can have a very successful early game without chopping at all. It's no killer, must-have strategy, only an option.

WOW!

I followed some the guidelines in this thread (few cities, varied army, bronze early) and my score went through the roof. I started a 'great plains'/small map, and owned it up:

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/3858/civ4screenshot00015uw.th.jpg (http://img488.imageshack.us/my.php?image=civ4screenshot00015uw.jpg)

It was cool. I am a relative civ newb (I sucked at civ III, and pretty much at civ IV until that last map :)). I guess I will have to up the difficulty now!

I know, most people get this score every game, it was partially luck, etc etc ;), but I figured it would add to the thread by showing that these ideas work.

Man that article is brilliant DH_Epic. I confess that I fell into the trap of playing like Civ3 (up to a point) and am now paying the price-though at 1100AD I still only have 5 cities (one of them captured from barbarians). The fact is I am LOVING the way in which I have to change my strategies in order to win-and the fact that the strategies I love best (small nation, perfectionist) are now able to work as well! As for the game crashing, well I get that happening maybe once per game session now (usually about 2-3 hours in), but got a lot more when I had ATI's Catalyst 5.10c drivers. Once I rolled back to my original drivers, the crashing problem pretty much vanished-so guess who I am blaming for the problem?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

My problem is that just because its new and different, doesn't necessarily make it better. While I like the idea in concept (once you got too many cities in civIII, they were more annoying to deal with than they were useful), I think 3 cities ruining you is way too drastic. It pretty much killed war. If gaining new territory makes you weaker, whats the point? Even if you eventually reach a point that gaining land is profitable, by that time I'm best friends with everyone and my shrine is raking in cash from all of their cities, so war still isn't profitable. I think the limit should be closer to 8 or so.

This has been the most informative article I have read in relation to the differences between Civ3 and Civ4. It seems the key difference is Strategy and that's important to me. I've not yet gotten CIV4 but in anticipation I have been reading these forums to come to understand the kinds of things I should do to make the game more enjoyable for me. With this article I can throw away all the "winning ways" that I learnt for Civ3 and concentrate on the game that I want to play. Thank you.

Thanks, everyone, for the positive words. I do think this is the best game of Civ ever -- and it's because there are many ways you can play and win. It all depends on your opponents, your starting location, and your talents...

I think 3 cities ruining you is way too drastic. It pretty much killed war. If gaining new territory makes you weaker, whats the point?

I can understand how you might get this impression, but it's not true. The game has changed from "Bigger is always better" to "Bigger is eventually better". The key to growing large is you need to have the economy to support new cities.

War is still very much possible, and still gets you an advantage. One key is you can't have long wars due to unit maintainance, so war must be short but focused. Even more important is that you can't use conquest to fuel more conquest -- you need to stop to consolidate at certain points. Only repeating the fact that war must be short and focused.

Even if you eventually reach a point that gaining land is profitable, by that time I'm best friends with everyone and my shrine is raking in cash from all of their cities, so war still isn't profitable.

This is probably by virtue of the way you play that you're raking in cash by shrines. But even if someone is the same religion is you, it doesn't mean you shouldn't kill them. You still gain from conquesting them, and it doesn't affect the money in your shrine one bit. War still is profitable -- it's just that you don't need it to win the space race.

BTW: Anybody else notice that the barbarians research stuff? When I was about to attack one of their cities I noticed it said Researching: Calendar before I attacked. I suppose if you left a barbarian city alone long enough it might even reach the point of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Organized is a useful trait. The problem is that you do need something of an early land grab, but don't go overboard either. The most important thing is getting resources and having Cities available to build your armies when it's time to fight...

There's some things I don't like about Civ IV, but having played the original, II, CtP, III, and IV, I gotta say IV is hands down the best. Civ II rocked cause it felt like the original Civ just revisited and improved. CtP and III had some interesting features but to be honest they just didn't feel at all like the same idea. They felt somehow more like games with more focus on detailed complex combat and little bits of randomness but didn't seem to build on the older games at all. Civ IV though feels like II, just improved. Not just a game, but an interactive simulation. Like II, combat in IV is straightforward, but the monotony is gone. The game has a reasonable interface. It seems to level the playing field so individual empires can only be outright dominant if they have attained all advantages. Attention was paid in detail to cultural effects and simulating them.

But here's the kicker. The way Civics work now rocks. That I think is the single element that makes Civ IV unique and downright the best.

I tried many of those bold strategies in my first game (settler). I still won, but not by much.

I have to say Civ IV is much better than Civ III... when it first came out. It took me a week to switch to CTP2, but by the time C3C came arround the gameplay went from a 3/5 to a 5/5 [IMO]. Where I might give Civ IV 4/5 for gameplay. It looks and sounds all nice though. I estimate Civ IV will get its wings too when I've quadrupled my CPU speed and RAM and pick up the x-pack.

BTW: Anybody else notice that the barbarians research stuff? When I was about to attack one of their cities I noticed it said Researching: Calendar before I attacked. I suppose if you left a barbarian city alone long enough it might even reach the point of acquiring nuclear weapons.

where did you see that?

Are you sure their city wasn't on top of spice or something that required you to build a plantation and the popup said "Research: calendar" cause you didn't have it yet?

I don't have the saves anymore (I had to re-build my system and have yet to re-install Civ IV), but I'm pretty sure that in the banner below the city name was a technology name. The barbarian city site was on a plains near a river and a hill, but no special tiles. Once I get it re-loaded and add in the patch, I'll check it again.

I don't hate Civ4, just the way artillery works. I do love that AI Civs don't give out their techs as easily as they used to, it was like competing with a research consortium to try and stay ahead in Civ3. So how do you know when you're ready to build more cities without choking on maintainance? I've only played one game, on only Warlord or whatever the second level is called now, and it kept telling me (even after all land was claimed) that I could afford a settler, does it do that at higher levels? Are there other ways of knowing? I'm also glad to hear about science overflow, I don't juggle tiles but I have adjusted my slider. Does overflow apply to buildings and units as well in Civ4?

It makes war more an exercise in intellect than in brute force. Which is great for people that love intricate strategies.

Totally! You do need sufficient numbers, but you can do a lot more with careful application of an army weaker than your opponent's than you could in previous civs.

Diplomacy, while much more frustrating sometimes, is much more challenging and plays a serious role in how well you do.

Did anyone find that difficulty ramped up too quickly in Civ III? I found it to be a bit of a let down. It also wasn't as intuitive as II was and IV seems to be so far.

Daemon, I totally agree with your overview of Civ III. Once I played IV for the first time I felt like III was more like a beta for that. Like they were testing new ideas in III and implemented them more completely in IV.

I think Great People, Religion, and Civics are all equally important to the significant improvment of the game.

So how do you know when you're ready to build more cities without choking on maintainance?

It's hard to know. But a good rule of thumb to start with is to watch your science meter:

100%: EXPAND!!! (You should only really have 100% science at the start of the game.)

80-90%: Build another city. Couldn't hurt you too much.

60-70%: Slow down. Only build another city if it's the only way to get iron/copper/horses.

40-50%: STOP! No more expansion. You need to build up.

Play with this rule of thumb at first. It will give you a good idea of how much to expand. Once you get more skilled, you might try more daring things, like driving yourself to the point of 20% research, or conquesting your first cities instead of building them, or running with 3 cities for most of the game.

(Remember, your research meter isn't an indicator of how much research you're actually doing. A huge civ at 40% might be doing more than a small civ at 100%. For some reason, it just makes a good indicator of how much extra funding your empire needs to break even.)

I'm also glad to hear about science overflow, I don't juggle tiles but I have adjusted my slider. Does overflow apply to buildings and units as well in Civ4?

Overflow happens on both science and production. So there's very little value to switching your tiles around or coordinating your building strategy to have no remainders. Remainders are never lost in Civ 4!

Overflow happens on both science and production. So there's very little value to switching your tiles around or coordinating your building strategy to have no remainders. Remainders are never lost in Civ 4!

What a great change, I hated having my most productive cities be almost able to produce 2 units a turn and having all the excess wasted. Thanks also for the expansion tips, will AIs do the same or does being responsible leave you very little territory to colonize?

The AI doesn't seem to expand very fast...besides, even if they do, you should then be able to expand militarily against them when you are ready to expand.

After military expansion, you will also need to stop to 'take a breather'...to let your economy recover from the comparatively rapid growth.

Thanks also for the expansion tips, will AIs do the same or does being responsible leave you very little territory to colonize?

At the noble level, the AI won't have any expansion advantage. So if you expand slow, the AI should be too. If they're expanding faster, you're either being too cautious, or they're being too reckless and you may have a good opportunity to take them down.

But at the higher levels, it gets more challenging. Come back when you find that your economy collapses when you try to out-expand the AI, or that the AI just expands too quickly to keep up. I'll have a whole new set of advice. :)

In my opinion,all civ games(civ 1/2,smac,3 and 4)are very good;3 is the weakest and 4 the best.
Because civ4 is such a good game,it seems that a sure win strategy doesn´t exist.One can win or lose against another good strategy,which is well and good.
So far,I think the bigest strategic problem,is about the dilema:maintainig the economy/research - grabing the minimum of necessary resources while they are free.And that as fast as possible.
Best regards,

The article is well-done, with thoughtful comments and replies. I'm sure people have had time to check out other articles, like Wounded Knight's strategy and some of the other chop-rush pointers. My gripes with 4, other than the huge system requirements, are with the pace of the game and with diplomacy.

GAME PACE: I've played 5 games, finishing one, and am shocked sometimes at where I am chronologically compared with my development. I may have code of laws or machinery, but not sailing or some other ancient tech and a) I can't pry it away from other civs or b) it's AD something. I don't understand how some folks are getting cultural or space victories in 1790.

DIPLOMACY: I'm really frustrated with being unable to trade gold per turn or resources for techs. I also have not been able to nail down the value of religion or civic changes, other than "buying off" a neighboring potential enemy for a few turns.

Some other observations:
GOLD- I too have found myself sitting on a pile of cash that appears to have no immediate use, but I have eventually been able to upgrage a load of crossbowmen to infantry.
GREAT PEOPLE- I have not figured out how to cultivate GP in the same way others have (see the article on the cultural bomb win) and never had much success generating them in III or IV so far. However, I have not seen any discussion on what people think of using them for a golden age. In my brief IV experience, I have exercised my first golden age via GP (always a prophet as one of the two) in 3 out of 5 games and found it to be extremely beneficial. I otherwise try to use the Prophets for unique religous holy buildings, Artists for border/captured cities (or to stretch my boundaries to a newly discovered resources), engineers for buildings, scientists for either a tech not on my list or an academy, and merchants for trade missions (I love dropping a Great Merchant and a couple of missionaries on the capital of the civ that I know I will be duking it out with in the endgame).

As I write, I'm psyching myself up for IV, so I think I'll turn this beautiful Saturday into a marathon session.


P.S. Although this is my first post, I've been lurking for a couple of years. I'm impressed with the decorum and grace that posters exercise, and I'm glad to be part of the community.

This is just a side note, but I rolled back my Ati driver to the previous version, and haven't had a crash since. Its been so wonderful, because like you i was putting up with it cause I like playing the game. But man, no more reboots. I'm in heaven!

Yeah ATI 4.10 fixed my crippling shutdowns. Of course it broke most other games I play so it's a real piece of $@*^ fix that should NOT be necessary but at least I can play juicy huge maps now.

That said I learned that small/tiny maps have much more appeal in Civ IV than In III where in my limited experience they were only good for folks who liked to see ginormous score numbers for a 1000bc domination victory. A small Highlands with lots of mountans and seas is fun fun fun. The only dissapointment is when you ask for 7 ai opponents and it only gives you 4, I assume due to lask of starting positions.

-drjones

Expansion is just as powerful as any other civ, if not moreso because it is more difficult to do effectively. The only difference is knowing HOW to expand - its not quite as intuitive as it was in earlier civs (build settlers nonstop).

Also, here's another tip that I like (and keep in mind that this is only one, or a part of one, strategy. there are thousands of strategies!). I was playing as the Arabs (the spiritual/philisophical leader) and I found (at least given my starting things, like leader attributes and position) that one great way to be able to be getting +30 and sometimes more on reasearch is to found lots (in my case, all of them :) ) of religions w/ the help of Great Prophets, and w/ more great prophets make the holy building of each one, then missionary spam all over the place!

As soon as I could I switched over to getting Great Artists and the Representation, Free Speech, Caste System (for tons of artists and prophets), State Property (to help deal with these far-flung culture-conquered cities) and Pacificism civic to a) keep the science at an insane rate and b)to culture-conquer all of your neighbors. I ended up winning the game, not through a culture city, b/c I focused my culture on the border cities which needed to conquer enemy (and allied!) ones, but by controlled enough of the map. It was awesome! By the end of the game, between civics, leader powers, and wonders, I was getting enourmous amounts of culture and great people points per turn.

Using this tactic I was able to culture-steal all of the cities of 2 neighbors, with the help of high cuture from artists and culture bombs from Great Artists :lol: . The high profit from the holy structures dealt w/ the matinence of the cities (I was still getting like +34gold/turn) and then I controlled an ENTIRE CONTINENT! Haha! I barely had to worry about land units, and I sent missionaries accross the seas to convert even more peoples, further raising my profits. Eventually, I did a quick invasion to take a city, and then made peace, and used that as a base to take over more cities culturally.

As a note to those who do not know, the holy buildings give you +1 gold/turn for each city which has the holy building's religion (yours and your neighbors). Think about it. 8 religions x only 10 cities is 80 GOLD PER TURN!:crazyeye:

BTW, I am now going to post this in the strategy section.

I don't think Great Prophets help you found religions, just build the shrines. Also, on a higher level you're unlikely to get all the religions. I'm lucky to get four playing at noble, it's probably almost impossible to get both Hinduism and Buddism.

I don't think Great Prophets help you found religions, just build the shrines.

You can use the GP to discover a religious technology that then gives you a new religion. If you really have enough of them.

Hadn't thought of that. Is there a consensus forming as to what is generally the most efficient uses of Great People (obviously subject to circumstances), or (hopefully) not?

I don't think Great Prophets help you found religions, just build the shrines. Also, on a higher level you're unlikely to get all the religions. I'm lucky to get four playing at noble, it's probably almost impossible to get both Hinduism and Buddism.

I know they don't directly found religions, but they get you religious technologies that help you get them faster. And yes, you can get both, it's just hard;). Anyways, I usually just go for the polytheism, and everything from there.

I know they don't directly found religions, but they get you religious technologies that help you get them faster. And yes, you can get both, it's just hard;). Anyways, I usually just go for the polytheism, and everything from there.

Me too, it leads naturally to Monotheism. How do you get both? Play against just one or two opponents?

Does anybody miss Military leaders (Armies)?

Does anybody miss Military leaders (Armies)?

Yes I do, although armies were pretty rough on game balance (too weak before Conquests and too strong ((but oh how I loved them!)) with it). It's absurd to have Great Everything But Generals, I'm paranoid enough to wonder if they left stuff out on purpose to justify an expansion.

on civ3, i just used to expand and expand, making the biggest civ possibly imagined, on civ 4, i realised you cant do this (as i realised when my uits went on strike :P)
now i build a few cities at the start and cultrally expand them like mad. Once they are nice an' big, i start conquering. this avoids getting the units on strike and still get the nice big land i also like :)

Yeah, in Civ3 early expansion determined everything, because so much of the map was claimed even before iron was visible. A large early empire almost guarenteed needed resources, while a small but well developed and defended empire would be easy meat if they didn't happen to get lucky. It was also easy to claim far away resources with a settler and a few soldiers - who cares if the city is permanently corrupt, it claims horses and it doesn't cost damage your core. Although the current system is much better (harder to exploit), I do wish they would tell us (or have they?) what the cost/city is at every number of cities.

I'm really going from CivII to Civ IV and have learned that pumping out settlers early on to do the land grap strategy hurts. Reading here, I think I might just have to wait on my first city built settler.

I was in the habit of building a new settler as soon as my city reached size 2 or 3. Then that new city would build a settler when it reached 2 or 3 WHILE my first city pumped another 2 cities out. Only then would my first city start improving itself. Thereafter, each new city would generate atleast 2 more cities before turning to city improvements.

Talk about hurting, both cash and research!

thanks again for the post!!

I keep wanting to mass-road everything for gold... ;_;

cIV is far better than any other game I have ever played. I am 33, I have had every single gaming device known to man and nothing compares to the level of addiction that this games has. And, yes. I do have a job that pays well and a wife that knows when to bring me a sandwhich after a 5 hour civ session. All of that bs aside. Here are few good tips:

1. You must explore your continent. Leaving it alone allows barbarians to set up camp. I simply train a handfull of warriors to set up shop in an effort to keep the barbarian villages from forming. Unless I want them to form. Other AI take alot of time to overtake a barbarian city. They hold the land and you dont pay the upkeep until you are good and ready to roll in with your Keshiks. Do not let them hang around too long. The axemen are a major pain.

2. Only build 2 or 3 barracks. Make sure they are in cities with a ton of hammers, add heroic epic and call it a day.

3. You must build the Parthenon. It is a good way to generate a ton of great people early.

4. Seek out the English, thay are always vulnerable to attack early. Their cities are very expensive to keep up though.

5. Establish as many religions as possible, great revenue stream coupled with happy workers along with big borders from culture.

6. Do not stretch too far for techs unless its to change a civic. The tech tree is the biggest hurdle in this game IMO. I map out electricity and rocketry for a space race vic. You need to have labs in order to win comfortably. I also recommend stretching for the space elevator. 50% less time on SS. You need to be well prepared for a space victory. More than likely Mao will beat you to the punch. I lost on Monarch with 1 turn left to build the SS engine to Mao. That is the closest I have been to winning at that level.

7. questions, comments?

4. Seek out the English, thay are always vulnerable to attack early. Their cities are very expensive to keep up though.



Interesting, why and why?

Good article and good discussion. I'd like to pose opposite question: what valuble remained from Civ3 strategies?
Any tips about ivasion of remote continents?
I hate "relegion method", but it looks the only option after Space Ship.

Interesting, why and why?

My experience has been that the English load up on low grade archers in an effort to protect a newer city. No walls. You can easily snap up 2 or more cities with 10 +2 swordsmen if you are lucky enough to discover Iron early. This tactic may be true for other civs as well, but especially for the English. Probably because of an AI trait. I could be wrong. Has anyone else found this to be true? As far as upkeep is concerned, the cities are usually around pop 5 to 7 with very little infrastucture. If you are attacking 10 to 12 squares away from your capital you also have the distance penalty to deal with as well.

I think I'm adapting quite well from Civ 3 -> to Civ 4...my first war taught mea lot about the military, although I did mix my units, because I read that Stack of Dooms or one unit type would get you obliterated. I'm still getting a hang of Great People, religion, the disorganized mess of a Civilopedia, all of the increased complexities of resources...but I'm still on my first game.

Indeed it is much different than Civ 3. I'm still on my first (full) game (I played half the tutorial mission), but I'm already getting that "one more turn" syndrome.

all i know is i tried to build as many settlers as posable, so before i can connect the cities threw roads, i have 10 cities, all costing me 1-5 gold per turn just because they are so far away from my main city. so with 10 cities, it is a good number of credits early on, and well lets say to cover that i had to bring my science down to 50-60%, and well. That doesn't look good in the long run!!!!!!!


This is a great articale. and it tells you how to be a good civ 4, player, basicly it says forget everything you know, and start over again!!!!! OKay well not a good player, but it gets you pointed in the right position:D :D :D

I keep wanting to mass-road everything for gold... ;_;
I hear ya there

My experience has been that the English load up on low grade archers in an effort to protect a newer city. No walls. You can easily snap up 2 or more cities with 10 +2 swordsmen if you are lucky enough to discover Iron early. This tactic may be true for other civs as well, but especially for the English. Probably because of an AI trait. I could be wrong. Has anyone else found this to be true? As far as upkeep is concerned, the cities are usually around pop 5 to 7 with very little infrastucture. If you are attacking 10 to 12 squares away from your capital you also have the distance penalty to deal with as well.
The Persians under Cyrus are another easy target. If ever he starts near me, he is the first to go. :satan: It is a pity I've never been able to build Keshiks to do the job though (I have never started near horses, and I almost always play as Genghis Khan)

How important is it to make sure your cities form a connected empire.


You'll get about +1 commerce per connected city (since they have
trade routes), so this is moderately important.

This is the article I've relied on most in my transition from III to IV, and it has helped a lot. But, I got kind of carried away with Tip #1. My two cents worth for anyone else who is making the jump is that judicious expansion won't automatically destroy you.

I was so traumatized about expansion after reading this and other threads that I hardly dared build settlers in my first few games. I ended up with, well, little tiny "empires." Nothing against Luxemborg, but you feel like you're more in the game if you have a good eight to twelve cities at the end of the expansion period, instead of three. But that was probably obvious to everybody but me....

Is there a formula for how many cities you can have before hitting each upkeep level? In Civ3 there was the OCN, has anyone figured out the equivalents?

Very good article!! Spot on!!! :D
It still feels very familiar to CivIII in some ways though. Instead of just expanding u now grow ur cities more and think about technology, trading and all, but then u still have to get ur troops stashed together and conquer some of the AI's territory. War still feels so much like CivIII. It's virtually the same. U have iron ur good. Otherwise ur in trouble. :)
It's just the build up to that necessary land grabbing to some territories and fundamental resources u need to give u the edge, so u can kick back and relax in later era's, that has changed.

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

Very true, the city upkeep has eliminted the early game settler rush that made covering the map ASAP the way to win. Some things have changed about war though, mostly for the better, although artillery and therefore ships and (to a lesser extent planes) are all screwed up now when they worked very well in Civ3 Conquests. Also, now you're not screwed completely without iron because the main defensive unit, archers, requires no resources. It's just hard to go on the offense without iron. On the other hand, Civpedia says maces require iron or copper, and if that's true copper should be enough for most of your offense needs too.

I think it's very funny how when the game came out we thought it was so different from Civ 3, and now that we know how to play better, we find that it's pretty much the same.

1) Tip One: Expand, Expand, Expand!!!

The first thing you should do is turn your main city into a settler factory. Try to build as many cities as possible to grab as much land as possible. Be sure to build the occasional unit to defend your outermost cities.

If you don't get your third settler killed by a barbarian, you'll find that this surely puts you in a losing position by 250 AD, with your tech rate hovering around 10%, and the AI several techs ahead. Congratulations, you suck at Civ 4!

There are a few reasons why fast expansion is bad.

- Maintainance (more cities leads to a lot more maintainance!)
- Lack of improvements (if you're not generating a profit now, you can't afford to take on another city)
- Barbarians (yep, once barbarians discover archery and bronzeworking, they become a fearsome sight)

Not only that, but you don't NEED to expand like hell. Other than expansion, the following things generate money/research: religion, specialists, cottages. I won't say more than that. Having lots of cities isn't the be all and end all.

By now, people have figured out that fast expansion (sometimes through settlers but usually using axemen) is still the best way to play the early game. You just need to make sure to build enough cottages to cover the cost.

2) Tip Two: Micromanage Like Hell

As you approach the completion of a building or unit, be sure to juggle around your tiles so that way you don't overflow. Same thing with your research rate. By lowering your research rate before discovering Meditation, you can make sure that the AI discovers buddhism and you get left with jack squat.

Yep. You played with overflow, and actually paid the price.

Overflow is no longer something you have to juggle, because overflow isn't discarded, it's added to the next thing you build/research. Moreover, you WANT lots of overflow. In my experience, an AI got buddhism instead of me because I lowered my tech rate on the last turn of meditation. I reloaded, didn't lower my tech rate, and presto, my nation was the holy land of buddha.

If you still think micromanagement has been taken out of the game, you need to read the article in my sig.

3) Tip Three: Try to Grab All the Wonders

All the wonders are useful so try to grab all of them. Once you build your first, try to build all the others. Once you lose that one, take your excess cash and try to build another wonder. Once you lose that one, take your excess cash and try to build another wonder. Once your cities are without any kind of infrastucture, grab your ankles and brace yourself for Caesar to hit you with his Praetorians.

You simply cannot build all the wonders. Industrious civs will have an advantage on you. And marble/stone are also very helpful. And if you're not one of the first people to discover a tech, you can forget about even trying to build the corresponding wonder. You have to know what wonder will help you the most and plan towards it.

Not to mention that in the time it takes to build all those wonders, you could have libraries in all your cities and all your tiles improved. Or you could be the first person to have 8 horse archers. Wonders aren't the be all and end all.

If you can finish the wonder before the AI does, it's often a good idea to build it. Even a wonder whose effect is useless to you will still be helpful for the GPP it provides. This wasn't the case in Civ 3. Of course, on higher levels, you simply can't beat the AI to wonders most of the time. That doesn't make them not worth getting though, it just makes them hard to get.

4) Tip Four: Generate Lots of Cash and Buy Techs

Lower your tech rate to 0%. Absorb lots of cash. Now contact the AI. You can buy your first tech!

But wait, you need the alphabet to do that. So scratch that. Beeline to the alphabet. Now lower your tech rate to 0 and start buying those techs.

But nobody will sell you anything good, right? That's because the AI knows that their tech lead is more important than any amount of cash you can give them. They want to finish that wonder first. They want to keep you in the stone age while they get medieval on your buttocks.

The AI's tendency to hang onto its techs means that 100% research and trading for smaller techs won't work

How do you get around this?

THINK HARD. What technology do you REALLY need?

This one truly has changed. Buying techs from the AI is no longer a good strategy, they just charge too much for them. Instead, you now need to research techs that the AI won't go for, and trade for the ones who didn't research. You can still get most of your techs through trades, but now you need to offer other techs in exchange, not just gold.

As long as you play with tech trading allowed (i.e. didn't check "no tech trading" at game start), the tech to go for needs to be dictated by which tech the AI won't research more than by what you actually need. Then you have better bargaining chips. Of course, there are also techs that offer an advantage to the first one who gets them, and those should be researched whether or not the AI goes for them as well. And the same goes for military techs.

5) Tip Five: Keep the best defender in your cities, and pump out lots of the best attacker on your conquest

Swordsmen are the best attacker. And this game is exactly like Civ 3 -- your best defence is a good spearman. Keep two or three spearmen in each city, and build a stack of swordsmen and go after the AI.

Alright, so you just found out that your spearmen and swordsmen are incredibly vulnerable to axemen. Axemen have 5 strength to a swordsman's 6, but they gain huge bonuses against other melee units.

Building only one unit type is a surefire way to get yourself killed. Because that means the enemy only has to build one unit type to stop you. And the defender has a huge advantage from tile bonuses, city bonuses, and getting to 'choose' the ideal defender against whatever attacker you use. Attackers need to be SMART.

Read the manual. Really look at those units. Try to figure out the best counter for each one. And there IS a counter for each one. The line between offense and defence is blurred, too. Consider a defensive catapult waiting behind your city walls. Consider an offensive spearmen, to provide your marauding swordsmen a defence against war elephants. The more you mix your units, the harder it is for your opponent to deal with your case.

And a stack of units is expensive. You can't just keep them on the shelf. You have to use em.

A stack of nothing but axemen is still the best way to attack early in the game. A single archer (or if you don't have archery, a single axeman) is the best way to defend most cities. Nothing has changed.

6) Tip Six: Play the same way every game

Now that you've read these tips, you know a surefire to win every single Civ 4 game. A strategy that always works.

And that's "adapt". You need to be responsive to the situation on the ground, or else you're about as smart as a speak & spell.

Until they truly fix cottage spamming and the financial trait, you can indeed play every game the same way and win, provided you make sure to pick a financial leader.

A new game always seems to have more diverse strategies. This remains true until people figure out which strategy is the best (which sometimes takes a while). After that, the game doesn't seem so diverse anymore.

And as for the two posters above me, who decided to revive this thread (for our amusement perhaps), there's one thing that you need to learn. Iron is not crucial in the early game, not even close. Copper is. And the best unit to attack with isn't swordsmen, it's axemen. You should attack your first victim long before iron working is even discovered.

And as for the two posters above me, who decided to revive this thread (for our amusement perhaps), there's one thing that you need to learn. Iron is not crucial in the early game, not even close. Copper is. And the best unit to attack with isn't swordsmen, it's axemen. You should attack your first victim long before iron working is even discovered.


Lol, I know Swordsmen are only good (and real good at that) to siege cities. :p
And I completely disagree with u. Iron gives an amazing advantage over your opponents!!
And about reviving the thread. What's wrong with that? Stop bugging other people for silly things like this plz! It's really annoying.
Finally, about attacking long before u discover iron... That's far from always possible. The AI is often just simply faster at building an army than u (try to build more units than AI at deity lol). U need to wait for the right moment to attack, and consider whether u really want to attack ur AI opponent if he's got a much stronger military. Strong units like swordsmen and axemen with the bulk of ur army should be able to crush ur AI opponents however. But that's a different discussion about when u best go to war and whether just to occupy/rase a couple of cities or go for complete annihilation. But it all just depends on the circumstances. There's no golden rule there!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

Lol, I know Swordsmen are only good (and real good at that) to siege cities. :p
And I completely disagree with u. Iron gives an amazing advantage over your opponents!!
And about reviving the thread. What's wrong with that? Stop bugging other people for silly things like this plz! It's really annoying.
Finally, about attacking long before u discover iron... That's far from always possible. The AI is often just simply faster at building an army than u (try to build more units than AI at deity lol). U need to wait for the right moment to attack, and consider whether u really want to attack ur AI opponent if he's got a much stronger military.
I agree with your disagree, DariusI and disagree with zombie as usual. In all of my game ALL!!!, Iron has been a must for me. Copper is a resource for those who fail to hook Iron. (In the ealy game.)

Very true, the city upkeep has eliminted the early game settler rush that made covering the map ASAP the way to win. Some things have changed about war though, mostly for the better, although artillery and therefore ships and (to a lesser extent planes) are all screwed up now when they worked very well in Civ3 Conquests. Also, now you're not screwed completely without iron because the main defensive unit, archers, requires no resources. It's just hard to go on the offense without iron. On the other hand, Civpedia says maces require iron or copper, and if that's true copper should be enough for most of your offense needs too.


Archers should in no case be the main defenders: reason: they suck!! No city can survive a serious pounding of a stash of swordsmen if defended with 'archers'. Besides, you should defend forwards; in other words let your attacking units defend ur cities by attacking invaders in the mainland. That way u don't even need defensive units; giving u an army capable of both (aggressive) defence, offence and counter-attack!! :cool: Don't cram in your cities, unless no other option, (cause ur flooded by enemy troops and defending resources, hamlets,... would leave ur city unprotected).
--> Defend your borders rather than ur cities!! lol Otherwise you'll be going back to the Dark Ages due to total erasure of ur economy. :) That is ideally of course.
And I agree with u agreeing my disagree Kalleyao. Iron is simply superior to copper. Take a look at ancient history for that matter. :)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

Finally, about attacking long before u discover iron... That's far from always possible. The AI is often just simply faster at building an army than u (try to build more units than AI at deity lol). U need to wait for the right moment to attack, and consider whether u really want to attack ur AI opponent if he's got a much stronger military. Strong units like swordsmen and axemen with the bulk of ur army should be able to crush ur AI opponents however.

I actually do try, and indeed succeed, in attacking the AI with axemen at Deity. Were i to wait for swordsmen, i couldn't succeed, because the AI would be too powerful by then and the cultural bonus of the cities would be too much to overcome.

I used to be like you and think that swordsmen are better city attackers then axemen, but i saw the light a long time ago.

Axemen are better because they come sooner, so you're facing fewer archers, and very little or no culture.

How do you manage to make more axemen than the AI can make archers to defend? Easy, it's called pop rushing and chop rushing. The AI doesn't know how to do either.

There are countless good strategy articles in these forums that will confirm this if you still don't believe me. Just look around a bit.

I actually do try, and indeed succeed, in attacking the AI with axemen at Deity. Were i to wait for swordsmen, i couldn't succeed, because the AI would be too powerful by then and the cultural bonus of the cities would be too much to overcome.

I used to be like you and think that swordsmen are better city attackers then axemen, but i saw the light a long time ago.

Axemen are better because they come sooner, so you're facing fewer archers, and very little or no culture.

How do you manage to make more axemen than the AI can make archers to defend? Easy, it's called pop rushing and chop rushing. The AI doesn't know how to do either.

There are countless good strategy articles in these forums that will confirm this if you still don't believe me. Just look around a bit.


Ever heard of selective (or more precisely simply mis-reading?!?)
I've already said that I know Axemen are better for open attack on ur opponent.
Next time u feel a 'smart' comment coming... please make sure it's got anything to do with what the other person just said and it's not completely besides the point!
So... about pop-rushing and chop rushing and... we all know about that already. I'm not gonna tell u again what I was talking about earlier... just learn to read!

Edit: Besides, if ur opponent only has archers (as his best unit) swordsmen "are" better than axemen!!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

I'm not talking about "open attacks", i'm talking about attacking cities that have nothing but archers. Axemen are better than swordsmen at this task, because you can get them faster, and attack a city with 2 archers and zero culture instead of a city with 4 archers and 40% cultural bonus.

Swordsman with CR1 vs archer with CG1 and 40% cultural bonus, fortified for 5 turns : 6.0 vs 6.15

Axeman with CR1 vs archer with CG1 and 0% cultural bonus, fortified for 5 turns : 5.0 vs 5.25

The odds are only slightly lower for the axeman, but the axeman costs less, and you're facing fewer archers.

It's much easier to conquer a civ with axemen than with swordsmen.

And since waiting for swordsmen means that the AI is sure to have axemen by the time you arrive, this makes it even worse for swordsmen and is one more reason to attack earlier and with only axemen.

Well, I disagree. If I'd know my opponent has no way of getting resources for swordsmen and Axemen, I'd go for Swordsmen. They're simply stronger. More expensive yes, a little bit. :)
And ur idea of attack before able to make swordsmen is not an imperative at all. Just attack at the right time. There's no way of making sure ull be able to attack an opponent very early, because starting conditions can be very harsh. And often it's first survival, and only then attacking. If u have the possibility to make an early attack, sure go for it. But often it's not the case. In the beginning AI on Deity especially has so many advantages it's difficult to just attack them so fast. U need to wait until u have the advantages of Swordsmen and/or Axemen.
Axemen are in general warfare better. Once again we all knew that, but in the case of taking on archers I'd definetely take Swordsmen, although it hardly matters... the archers will be chopped to pieces anyway!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

Since i won't convince you with words, all i can say is try it and you'll see. Start a Deity game and attack an AI properly with very early, chop rushed and pop rushed axemen. Restart the game, then attack the same opponent with swordsmen. You'll see how much easier it is with axemen when done properly.

I too once swore by swordsmen, until i saw from experience that i was wrong and that axemen are indeed much better.

I too once swore by swordsmen, until i saw from experience that i was wrong and that axemen are indeed much better.

Zombie soixante-neuf, ur such a bad listener. I can hardly count the number of times I've already told u that I am perfectly aware that axemen are usually better for attacking an opponent... :scan:
This however, does not take away that iron is thé crucial resource in the early game!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

How is that? If axemen are the best unit for attacking opponents (which, actually, you didn't make clear before this post, and you seemed to be arguying the opposite), then what makes iron so crucial? If iron doesn't allow for better units, then what exactly does it do that copper doesn't do?

How is that? If axemen are the best unit for attacking opponents (which, actually, you didn't make clear before this post, and you seemed to be arguying the opposite), then what makes iron so crucial? If iron doesn't allow for better units, then what exactly does it do that copper doesn't do?

Okay. Let me clarify. Imo Swordsmen is best to attack if opponent has no iron and copper. I know u disagree.
In other cases Axemen is best, although having some swordsmen as well certainly doesn't hurt!!
Over all: don't have iron "and/or copper" ur screwed. It's the same as in Civ3 with Iron. U need the advantage of these resources to beat ur opponent. Otherwise u stand no chance.

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

Okay. Let me clarify. Imo Swordsmen is best to attack if opponent has no iron and copper. I know u disagree.

Like i said, axemen are best because you'll be facing a much thinner defense. Try it, you'll see.

In other cases Axemen is best, although having some swordsmen as well certainly doesn't hurt!!

Swordsmen won't help at all in this case. If you attack with swordsmen first, axemen will defend and kill them. If you attack with axemen first, archers will defend. Then when you send in the swordsmen, axemen will defend against them and kill them. Much better to use axemen only.

Over all: don't have iron "and/or copper" ur screwed. It's the same as in Civ3 with Iron. U need the advantage of these resources to beat ur opponent. Otherwise u stand no chance.

Even if you do find iron close by, without copper you're starting from a huge handicap on Deity, unable to expand until it's too late. Copper is by far the most crucial resource in this game. Iron is only useful to allow for axemen if you don't have copper.

This post was intended for beginners, so there ARE lots of exceptions and nuances. But I'll actually point out that the game is even more nuanced than your 'advanced' amendments.


By now, people have figured out that fast expansion (sometimes through settlers but usually using axemen) is still the best way to play the early game. You just need to make sure to build enough cottages to cover the cost.

I'd give you this. Although I suspect you'd need a financial or organized civilization, even so. Or find yourself dangerously close to bankruptcy at one point. The truth is, even if "as many cities as possible" isn't the right strategy, it's still smart to go for an 'early knockout'. Why? Because everyone's capitol is automatically balanced to make it a "super city". Even if you delay building your first city until 1000 BC, taking the enemy capitol can be huge.

This is a pretty fair comment, although it's slightly more complicated than it was in Civ 3.

If you still think micromanagement has been taken out of the game, you need to read the article in my sig.

While micromanagement will always be a part of Civilization 4, I think there's a few myths in your post. Remainders and roundoffs don't happen, so playing with 'binary science' doesn't really save you anything. I'm almost positive that Firaxis carries those fractions over -- even if they're not displayed in your statistics screens.

But the stuff about worker micromanagement hasn't gone away (hence why I've been such a big advocate of workerless-improvements).

That's to say nothing of Firaxis's ability to close loopholes with a patch.

If you can finish the wonder before the AI does, it's often a good idea to build it. Even a wonder whose effect is useless to you will still be helpful for the GPP it provides. This wasn't the case in Civ 3. Of course, on higher levels, you simply can't beat the AI to wonders most of the time. That doesn't make them not worth getting though, it just makes them hard to get.


My main point -- losing a wonder sucks more than ever, and it's harder to get all the wonders than ever. I know lots of people who make it their goal to build every single one. Trust me when I say that not only is this not feasible, but it's probably not worth it. 500 hammers for 2 or 3 extra Great People Points? You could build a lot of other stuff with that, and still get the GPP through a single additional specialist.

A stack of nothing but axemen is still the best way to attack early in the game. A single archer (or if you don't have archery, a single axeman) is the best way to defend most cities. Nothing has changed.

You're right, except the part about nothing changing. Yes, there's still generally one great city defender (although less so). But archers are not the best way to defend against swords or horses. Moreover, the most important combat no longer takes place around the city-tile. If you decide to defend your cities with a single archer, you'll quickly find your resources cut off, your roads severed, and your economic infrastructure pillaged. An archer in a city can't do anything about that. You *need* those counter-units to be able to stop enemies wandering your city-radius.



I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

true, it's not perfect (bugs are alive too), but it's the best strategy game i've seen so far.
Most "strategy game" are at best tactic games. (Some aren't even using good tactics ie RTS isn't involving much strategy nor tactics, AFAIK)
Here, you have to master tactics (a bit), logistics, diplomacy and strategy.
It's complex and rich, with much more variety than Civ 3.

I'm almost as enthousiastic as i was for Civ 1 (which was a completely new game concept).

The only drawback is the time it takes to finish a game.:rolleyes:

edit : typo

While micromanagement will always be a part of Civilization 4, I think there's a few myths in your post. Remainders and roundoffs don't happen, so playing with 'binary science' doesn't really save you anything. I'm almost positive that Firaxis carries those fractions over -- even if they're not displayed in your statistics screens.

People who have looked at the SDK can tell you with 100% certainty that you're wrong. Fractions don't carry over. Also, a simple test in game run for two turns also proves that fractions aren't carried over. I wish they were, but they aren't.

I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.

I don't want to get sucked into the swords-axes pissing match but I would suggest going on the offensive with just axes right away if you discover copper in your initial city radius.

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.


I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar. Only now you have some extra options (like religion; who cares about that anyway), there's no more grab as much land as you can crazyness and settler-granary combo cities; the game may feel a bit more balanced and growth seems to be more important at times than expansion, but as I said, when u boil it down, it's more or less the same as playing Civ3. Which does not mean it's not a great game and great improvement. :) (the wonder-movies suck though)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar.

I think that's true, but of course it's intentional. When making a sequel to a series of very successful games, why would you want the mechanics to feel totally different?

A large part of the imbalance and degenerate play style that the Zombie complains about is due to his systematic exploitation of one particular bug. It would be nice if that were fixed (and I'm hoping it will be in Warlords), but Civ3 had bugs that were just as big, in their own way.

There's also more opportunity to play with different styles than you recognize or acknowledge. There's one basic style of play that generally achieves the highest score. But Civ has never been primarily about high scores, and if you focus only on high scores then, yes, you lose a lot of the variety of the game. But it's very possible to play for unique objectives that you choose and create whatever challenges you want. This was true in Civ3 and it's equally true in Civ4. Play games with no chopping, and/or no pop rushing, and/or no early war, etc. You can choose the style of game you like: it's not enforced upon you.

I think that's true, but of course it's intentional. When making a sequel to a series of very successful games, why would you want the mechanics to feel totally different?

A large part of the imbalance and degenerate play style that the Zombie complains about is due to his systematic exploitation of one particular bug. It would be nice if that were fixed (and I'm hoping it will be in Warlords), but Civ3 had bugs that were just as big, in their own way.

There's also more opportunity to play with different styles than you recognize or acknowledge. There's one basic style of play that generally achieves the highest score. But Civ has never been primarily about high scores, and if you focus only on high scores then, yes, you lose a lot of the variety of the game. But it's very possible to play for unique objectives that you choose and create whatever challenges you want. This was true in Civ3 and it's equally true in Civ4. Play games with no chopping, and/or no pop rushing, and/or no early war, etc. You can choose the style of game you like: it's not enforced upon you.

totally true!
the variety of possible play style is what i like in this game.:)

I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar. Only now you have some extra options (like religion; who cares about that anyway), there's no more grab as much land as you can crazyness and settler-granary combo cities; the game may feel a bit more balanced and growth seems to be more important at times than expansion, but as I said, when u boil it down, it's more or less the same as playing Civ3. Which does not mean it's not a great game and great improvement. :) (the wonder-movies suck though)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia. :king:

That's all true, and so what? Civ3 was a great game and I'm glad Civ4 is an update and of it and not something new. It's still the same game as Civ1, and that's what it should be. The wonder movies do suck though, and I'm hoping in vain that they'll fix artillery/warships in Warlords.

I'm not saying i don't want Civ 4 to be like Civ 3. I agree that's a good thing. Just this article portrays it as something completely different, and although it seemed that way at first, in retrospect it isn't.

I guess the thread started just as Civ 4 came out so the differences were more noticable than the similarities (and there are significant differences i.e. phased expansion rather than continuous expansion). So in that sense its not that the OP was wrong its more that its becoming obselete.

Yeah, that's what i meant (i thought that's what i said).

People who have looked at the SDK can tell you with 100% certainty that you're wrong. Fractions don't carry over. Also, a simple test in game run for two turns also proves that fractions aren't carried over. I wish they were, but they aren't.

I stand corrected. But then, I anticipate that this would be easy to correct with a mod... I'm surprised Firaxis doesn't do something about this themselves.

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.

I think this is a false debate.

It would be inaccurate to say there's no no advantage to expansion. Or micromanagement. Or building a wonder. Or picking your research choice based on what you might be able to sell to the AI. Or finding something that works every game.

But this article never made those claims. Nor was it ever to be a comprehensive strategy guide to follow all the way to deity. The focus was to save a lot of frustration for Civ 3 players as they transitioned to Civ 4.

Saying this article misses a lot of important nuances would be like complaining that your fisher price xylophone won't let you play a symphony.

Several specific exploits in Civ 3 have been closed. And a few 'no-brainer' strategies have been curtailed significantly. Back when lots of people were baffled by Civilization 4 and ready to refund their copies, that was important to know. The specific changes hold true. But the unmentioned strategies that remain, as well as the new exploits and strategies -- that's where other articles come in, and you have eloquently provided.

I am in agreement with dh_epic .

Actially the only vercion of civ I did not like was civ 3 and especially civ3 conquest. It was just to linear.
Now, on other hand we have mach more variety. Strategic decisions in responce to changing situation play mach more higher role now then in previous civ instalments. Game generally rpovide more challange and less of extrimelly unnoing micromanagment.
Even on empreror+ I put some of my workers on automatic later in game.

Original article was very informative when civ4 just come out for ex civ3 players.

There was no internat when I played civ1-civ2 so I still do not undestand this REX everyone talking about.
I was allways winning on Emperor in civ one with out any Rex strategies on highest dificulty level.
Secret was coorect combination of Food/caravans, We love presiddent, spyes, civy milithary or bribing take over, et. I allways was building cities with small overlap and was very surprised when read about this REX thin.

I just tried playing Civ IV again for the third time (installing it, seriously trying to play it etc), I found I didn't like it. So I went looking for some guides and I came across this. It's a bit late, but I think i get the message.

You don't like Civ 4....THEN you must playing it like it like Civ 3 (and without saying it,I'm inferring you simply suck)

You cannot dislike Civilization IV for any legitimate reason. It is the holy grail. It is what Jesus died for. You dislike there MUST BE A PROBLEM WITH YOU. If you find it boring/pointless or a disappointment of a game, there must be something wrong with the way you are playing. You know why? Only retarded people dislike Civ IV. By the way all current Civ 3 players suck, because Civ IV is so much better in every way.

Follow the simple steps list above by DariusI, and you will love the game. If you still don't like the game or in fact hate the fact you feel like you wasted money on the game, its because you are stupid and can't play properly.

Just clearing things up a bit for new Civ IV players reading this article. I hope I got that air of being an arrogant pompous twit just right. If only Darius was still around to confirm.

Not that I really care... because a lot of people have found this little article helpful. But yeah, I think there is just a fundamentally different kind of player who enjoys Civ 3 instead of Civ 4. Maybe not that the Civ 3 player is stupider, but the Civ 3 player likes being able to trick the AI, expand without worry, and find all kinds of little tricks for micromanagement. Civ 4 isn't a masterpiece, but it takes away the emphasis on surefire tricks, and puts just a bit more emphasis on making choices that may be good or bad depending on the situation.

Plenty of people "get" Civ 4 and still hate it. But the people who suck at Civ 4 and hate it are probably just closed-minded, if I had to take a guess.

Eek! Zombie Thread! It's alive! Run! :eek:

My opinion hasn't changed. So to anybody who even dares to argue over which Civ game is better, I have two things to say to you.

It's a game. So, if you don't like it for whatever reason you can muster; then shut up and go play something else.

It's a game. So, if you love it enough to defend it from every criticism; then shut up and go back to playing it.