Problems with playing Indian.

[Alisdair]

Hi everyone,
it's my first post, sorry if this is elsewhere.

When playing Indians I seem to have two problems.

I'm playing Prince, continents, normal speed.

I'm generally placed somewhere in the desert. It's a long way to another suitable place to settle. That's just a small problem though.

The second problem is the barbarians seem three times worse than when playing other civilizations. They come thicker and faster than usual and have axemen very soon it seems. This seems to happen every time I play Indians. Also, the Ai goes crazy attacking me too. It seems when you are dominating massively with culture, obviously when playing Indians I try for a culture win and make a fast streak at it early in the game, you can easily get some religions and build lots of wonders fast. It's just crazy to have to deal with the wars that seem to come my way, all the time, even when my army is pretty decent, as in about 8-10 units per town. I don't understand. Has anyone else had this experience?

Thanks,
Alisdair.

 

[Benginal]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

• Barbarians begin to spawn and begin to enter territory about the same time every game.
• No civilizations are more prone to starting in worse locations than others.

I think what's going on is that you are just incredibly behind in terms of power, probably because you're focusing on culture. 8-10 units doesn't help if they're outdated.

For more specific advice, post a saved game. Or, better yet, put up some screenshots of your game.

 

[xenex]

Are you possible playing out the start bad?
What I mean with this is that the indians start with mystisicm, so are you trying to get religion, where you should actually be trying to get defenses up?
If you are doing that and you are having problems with protecting your territory you should stop going for it.

Indians start with Myst/Mining so that means cheap masonry.You could try going for the great wall.If you start near stone you should really consider it.Having fast workers means you can chop it out pretty fast.

You start with mystisicm so you already have your border pops ready for when you need them,your one tech away from bronze working which is a tech you will want fairly early.So unless you get seafood heavy start, you should get agg and AH first, obviously you can wait with AH if you dont have any AH resources.As soon as your done with that you should consider if you want The Great Wall, if you want it or could use it, then you want to tech this now.After this you will want BW.At which point you should be set for the early game after you get your economy tech.

If you decided that you want to go for the great wall then try to have 2 or maybe 3 cities done by the time you finish it, the reason for this is that you dont want to slow down your potential expansion too much.Depending on the land you have your capitol is the one that will most likely be building the great wall, so while its building it you wont be able to get worker/settlers out thats why you want the other cities.

You should easily be able to get 2 cities out before you really have to consider TGW, now if you got stone in your borders already, that means you can get a 3rd city out pretty comfortably without risking losing TGW and you could potentialy build TGW in the second city,thus allowing your capitol to keep doing its settler/worker job.If your second city has plenty of food (beter yet is if it shares a food with the capitol) that means it that city can get started pretty early, so then you could grow to size 3 for example and then build what you need for your land, either a worker or a settler.


But yes like Benginal said post screens of your early game and possibly a save, the game shouldn't be too much different on the computer side (barbs/war declarations) unless you play the game differently.

 

[Alisdair]

Thanks for replies.

I forgot to mention I'm playing vanilla.

The units are not outdated at all, in fact, it just means that I get lots of promotions but the problem is I can't overcome the enemy and capture their cities, I can only defend all the time, until peace is declared which is fine, but then I found two Ais declare war on each other, I've had no luck getting an ally. Seems that I'm just getting unlucky, but if I play Hyuna Cupcake Incan, I never have these problems even with the same strategy. It's interesting.

 

[lymond]

we'd really need to see your game - there are a lot of factors that go into your problems. Starting locations and barb problems should not be a factor based on leader/civ.

 

[Windsor]

obviously when playing Indians I try for a culture win.

This shouldn't be obviously at all. If you want to succeed in Civ4 you can't go into a game with the attitude that "I'm nation X, therefore I'm going to play like this". Having a preset strategy is not a good thing.

And yes, screenshot and especially a save would also help

 

[Profanius]

The Civ you choose to play doesn't have any impact on barbarians or the way the AI treats you. However, the Civ you choose will affect your playstyle and which AIs you are facing.

More time researching and wonder spamming and less time expanding will mean more fog of war, which means more barbarians. If there are no AI civs nearby and you are in the middle of a large continent then Barb spawning will be much worse. You probably notice barbs a lot less while playing HC because his UU is an excellent early barb-buster.

The Civ you choose also affects the AIs a computer pitches against you. Having Lincoln, Ghandi and Hannibal as neighbours is a very different game to facing Ragnar, Genghis, Alexander, Montezuma and Catherine.

If you are racing ahead in the culture stakes then the AI will try to stop you. Even if you are equal in military terms, the AI knows it will slow you down. That's the beauty of Civ4, you can't win a culture victory without a strong military or stable economy; just as you can't win a military victory without a good economy and strong culture.

It sounds like you've only played 1 or 2 games as India, so it's far too early to draw conclusions. It also sounds like the problems your having are more down to geography and play style rather than which Civ.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

which AIs you are facing.

No.

The Civ you choose also affects the AIs a computer pitches against you.

No, the AIs act a certain way based on their personality, but which civ/leader you have is irrelevant.

If you are racing ahead in the culture stakes then the AI will try to stop you

Nope, AI doesn't factor this at all for war decisions.

Even if you are equal in military terms, the AI knows it will slow you down.

Actually it doesn't.

That's the beauty of Civ4, you can't win a culture victory without a strong military or stable economy;

100% pure BS that has been disproven on every single difficulty in existence .

just as you can't win a military victory without a good economy and strong culture.

Also untrue ^_^.

It also sounds like the problems your having are more down to geography and play style rather than which Civ.

Now THIS is true. It's possible to win any VC as any civ on any difficulty, though I strong advocate against pursuing high-level time victories as doing so generally involves avoiding winning some other way on purpose.

You are giving the AI too much credit. It is quite clearly coded in different ways than you think/say. I suggest you as well as OP checked out the thread "is there any logic to an AI DoW" so that you're up to date on how the game works.

 

[Profanius]

Ahhh... a forum nazi strikes, and there was me thinking this was a friendly forum.

No, the AIs act a certain way based on their personality, but which civ/leader you have is irrelevant.

Playing the same map, same conditions but with a different Civ will change the Civs pitched against you. Different Civ leaders have different AI personalities (as we have both stated), therefore the civ/leader you have IS relevant, as is the new starting position and which of those AIs are your neighbours.

Nope, AI doesn't factor this at all for war decisions.

Maybe you could tell us what it does factor and actually add to the discussion.

Actually it doesn't.

Fair enough, but once again, maybe you could add to the discussion and actually help out a new player.

100% pure BS that has been disproven on every single difficulty in existence .

I'm sure you had great fun "proving" such an abstract and interpretive comment. I'm sure you can chariot rush a whole map without ever having to build a cottage or assign a specialist, but for the casual players who are still learning the game it generally makes sense not to neglect your economy.

It's possible to win any VC as any civ on any difficulty.

What that has to do with the conversation I don't know. You're the king of Civ4, I get it, but for those of us without photo-allergies and a family basement to hide in, we just have to struggle on.

It is quite clearly coded in different ways than you think/say.

Maybe, but nothing says elitist techno-snob more than the person who dissects AI code and then wags their finger at casual gamers for not understanding it. I don't own a binary watch either!

I suggest you as well as OP checked out the thread "is there any logic to an AI DoW"

Wow, a helpful bit of advice - I hope it didn't hurt.

I don't mind being wrong, or being told as such, but with your knowledge and experience of the game at least you could add to the conversation rather than trying to belittle people who are trying to learn it. "I can beat any VC on any level" doesn't really help people who are trying to learn and enjoy the game, or looking to swap ideas with like-minded people. Nothing personal, but desperately self aggrandizing forum fascists are something of a bugbear, along with griefers, child molesters, and people who talk in theatres.

 

[sadmachines]

Playing the same map, same conditions but with a different Civ will change the Civs pitched against you.

No more change than picking the same civ twice in a row. Your opponents are either hand picked or random or a combination of the two.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Maybe you could tell us what it does factor and actually add to the discussion.

Search the thread "is there any logic to an AI dow" that I mentioned above. It has the answer to every one of these mechanics that you're quoting. I'm serious, every single one, the thread is that good.

I'm sure you had great fun "proving" such an abstract and interpretive comment. I'm sure you can chariot rush a whole map without ever having to build a cottage or assign a specialist, but for the casual players who are still learning the game it generally makes sense not to neglect your economy.

"Casual" players, of which there are very few frequenting this subforum , should not be given information that is objectively wrong when asking for gameplay advice. On most difficulties above prince, it is diplomacy and not military power that deters wars from starting, if they're avoided (that and luck). However, military can keep you alive if diplo fails. The distinction is very important though, and so is recognizing situations where you can lock out ANY chance of DoW. Even below monarch, it's rarely worthwhile to bother spamming troops if you're not using them for some purpose, and doing so doesn't help someone learn to improve. Every choice in the game is made for a reason.

What that has to do with the conversation I don't know. You're the king of Civ4, I get it, but for those of us without photo-allergies and a family basement to hide in, we just have to struggle on.

Did I say I was some uber player or the "king" of civ IV? I suggest you read it again. I'm a good player and have won most settings by now, but this subforum alone has double digit players who have routinely outperformed me in forum games, and that's not even touching succession games or HoF/XOTM. I said what you quoted based on some combination of not only what I've done myself, but what I've seen. These games aren't rare though; they are VERY common throughout the forums.

Speaking about what it has to do with the conversation, the answer is "a lot more than the entire post I'm quoting", actually. The OP is talking about struggling with a specific civ and is tying himself to 1 VC while playing that civ. Pointing out that any civ can win any victory condition, unlike your complaint about its relevancy, is relevant to the OP.

Maybe, but nothing says elitist techno-snob more than the person who dissects AI code and then wags their finger at casual gamers for not understanding it. I don't own a binary watch either!

Funny. I didn't code dive, but I still know these things because the people who DID were KIND enough to do it and post it on the forum. This information has been around for years, available to anybody willing to do a forum search or ask the question. Ignoring that material, not asking the question, and simply stating wrong things to a rookie player is laudable...how exactly? I'm not wagging my finger at your lack of knowledge, but rather the flaunting of it while ignoring the forum in the process.

I'm sure you had great fun "proving" such an abstract and interpretive comment

"Having military" versus not is "abstract and interpretive" ?! Again, I never said that I specifically proved it; it's actually been done many times over by multiple people (I am one of a LOT)

Playing the same map, same conditions but with a different Civ will change the Civs pitched against you.

Yikes! Repeating the wrong statement again doesn't make it right. The *only* impact a civ choice has on the opponents you face (if they're random) is that you won't play against the same civ as you chose.

therefore the civ/leader you have IS relevant

I like apples, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics is wrong.

Wait, that doesn't work? Neither does what I quoted.

The leader you choose never has an impact on the AI personalities. The AI personalities are the same regardless of your leader/civ. Their personality has *nothing* to do with the leader/civ chosen by the player. Ever. They are coded into an XML document for each AI, with certain behaviors weighted. There is no "personality" for the human civ, except what the human himself chooses to do.

but with your knowledge and experience of the game at least you could add to the conversation rather than trying to belittle people who are trying to learn it

Show me where I belittled the OP, because I'm curious.

Or wait, are you saying that YOU'RE trying to learn the game? If that's so, then rather than offering a rookie advice that is flat-out wrong, maybe you should be asking questions too? It would probably serve better than giving a bunch of bad advice and then name-calling someone who calls you out on the fact that the advice is terrible and detrimental to the play of anyone who adopts it.

What's funny is, I didn't even "belittle" you in that post. I merely pointed out each of the things you posted that were wrong, and suggested you read a very useful thread. I never commented on the quality of your play, or you as a person...apparently not a courtesy granted to me.

"I can beat any VC on any level"

-1 point for reading comprehension. If you're going to attempt to quote me, quote something I actually said/wrote.

Nothing personal, but desperately self aggrandizing forum fascists are something of a bugbear, along with griefers, child molesters, and people who talk in theatres.

Look, guy. I never called you any names. I never said you couldn't post here, or even that you shouldn't. I certainly didn't molest your children. Unlike you, I didn't even name-call you. I pointed out, line by line, each of the times you were wrong in your post. You gave bad advice, repeatedly and without qualification, to another rookie poster. The second someone calls you on it, your response is:

1. To claim that person is doing something different from what's being done (self-aggrandizement would at least suggest I was attempting to say I was a good player; I actually did not do this in the initial post you're complaining about)
2. Compare the post to a military force known for mass slaughter
3. Compare the post to a government in a reference that makes no sense (I have no actual power here, and never claimed that I did)
4. Make all kinds of silly comparisons to people committing illegal and/or simply annoying acts

Unlike you, I actually *did* reference a thread that would be extremely helpful to every WRONG point you posted.

Maybe you should try to comprehend what you read properly before you start calling people out on correcting your wrong statements ((and dishing out way more name-calling and non-logic in the process).

 

[Agramon]

The indians are really quite a versatile nation. You can go peacefully as well as heavy military with both. Early Bronze and spiritual help a lot.

@profanius: If you cannot be criticized, stop posting nonsense

 

[Blue Arc]

Profanius, TheMeinTeam is one of the most active, helpful, friendly, well-versed people on this forum. He's been playing this game and he helps people out when he can and I've never seen him belittle anyone, including you. He may not be the King of Civilization IV but he is one of the more informative players around.

And you, with your 5 posts and who clearly has no idea what he's talking about(everything you said was flat out wrong and all he did was correct you, very politely might I add) think you know better. And you call him a basement dwelling fascist Nazi akin to a child molester. I don't think this forum is for you, if you wanna attack the most helpful people here. That's not how things are done here.

By the way, my dislikes are arrogant jerks who talk big but know nothing. Looking at you.

ITT: Frack off, pal.

---

 

[michmbk]

Profanius, TheMeinTeam is one of the most active, helpful, friendly, well-versed people on this forum. He's been playing this game and he helps people out when he can and I've never seen him belittle anyone, including you. He may not be the King of Civilization IV but he is one of the more informative players around.

And you, with your 5 posts and who clearly has no idea what he's talking about(everything you said was flat out wrong and all he did was correct you, very politely might I add) think you know better. And you call him a basement dwelling fascist Nazi akin to a child molester. I don't think this forum is for you, if you wanna attack the most helpful people here. That's not how things are done here.

By the way, my dislikes are arrogant jerks who talk big but know nothing. Looking at you.

ITT: Frack off, pal.

---

+1

The ultimate irony to me is that I bet TMIT's responses here took longer to write than 98% of his games take to play!

 

[Gwynnja]

Nothing personal, but desperately self aggrandizing forum fascists are something of a bugbear, along with griefers, child molesters, and people who talk in theatres.

He did say "nothing personal."

 

[MarcoPollo]

To be fair to Profanus, I took TMIT's initial comments as arrogant, especially the one quoted as "100% BS". And if I was Profanus, I would have been insulted too. But I don't really think TMIT cares about who he insults though. I have been on the wrong end of his conceited remarks a few times. But I bet he doesn't even remember it.

That said, I find most of TMIT's comments helpful.

As for my 0.02$ on India. Their start is one of the slowest. SPI and ORG or SPI and PHI take some time to pay-off. So don't try to expand too fast. If you can't support your expansion, slow down. Don't worry about that "Barb City on the other side of the continent" . Finding a good balance is key at the beginning.

Later on, the ORG and SPI or SPI and PHI can really pay off, but the early Micro is very key.

 

[vranasm]

@Marco

Spi in my opinion has one of quickest repays as you put it... it comes into play right at the moment you can switch into slavery.

We can argue that financial has even quicker repay, but not many other traits have such quick infuence.

not expanding too fast is really universal rule and is true for every trait you will have. And btw Phi could really kick in if you a little bit overexpand since you will need scientist to dig out and guess what has great synergy with lib specs.

 

[Dem Taqat]

Well, I'm going to ignore all the arugueing and throw in my thoughts on India. India is one of my favorite civ's. The fast worker is a UU that helps a lot in the early stages, saving a turn every time it moves onto a forest or hill, as well as being able to run away from anything for most of the game. The Mausloeum is an okay UB, but I never really use it much, and haven't found it amazing when I did. Asoka is a leader I found quite fun, particularly when i have a large empire and civic costs are getting high, and the ability to switch them quickly helps all game. Ghandi is similar in the fact that he is spiritual and can switch civics easy. His philosophical trait gives him a GreatPerson earlier than usual, and I found switching my civics back between Specialist favoring and more situational ones (e.g. war civics) was very useful.

As to the concerns of the OP, it was said earlier the only difference your civ makes is that the AI won't play that civ. I think that civs with fishing are also more likely to start next to water, but other than that this is correct. The Civ you play as doesn't affect the map, barbs, or other civs, but it might affect how you react to them, as you've said already that you like to try for culture as India. This will make barbs seem tougher, as you're less focussed on them, and don't put so much effort into defeating them.

Hope this helps.

DT
Advising

 

[michmbk]

As for my 0.02$ on India. Their start is one of the slowest. SPI and ORG or SPI and PHI take some time to pay-off. So don't try to expand too fast. If you can't support your expansion, slow down. Don't worry about that "Barb City on the other side of the continent" . Finding a good balance is key at the beginning.

Later on, the ORG and SPI or SPI and PHI can really pay off, but the early Micro is very key.

Funny, I think Asoka is awesome for early expansion - mass fast workers and settlers, and use the org trait to help deal with it. I prioritize COL with him while expanding as fast as possible, and then building cheap courthouses. Then, I can use that empire to smack down everyone else. Don't underestimate the power of those fast workers - Asoka can be working tons of improved tiles, and chopping wonders.

Even better, he's great for the early rush when you have forests nearby - those workers chop down forests so fast, you can even overrun most protective civs..I remember a monarch student game where I took down Shaka and Wang with him in lightning speed, and then used all the land to destroy the world...

 

[MarcoPollo]

Its not like these workers work faster. They move faster. It still takes 3 turns to chop down 20 hammers of forest early on. So you may get 1 extra turn advantage from a tree chop, but on a tree hill, no dice. Instead, fast workers allow me to maintain less of them to do the same amount of work. I usually try to make 5 so that I can pump out one farm a turn. It would still take 5 regular workers to do the same.

In my comparison to fast starts. SPI only really comes into its own when you have a bunch of civics going on and the ability to switch to specific civics. The more civics you have the better SPI is. It takes a while to get all those good civics. Serfdom fast workers are pretty fast, but I gotta get to Feudalism first. By then, alot of my important land development is done.

In contrast to say EXP, CHA, or IMP, CRE you can expand early and get cities up and running faster.

True, Asoka is a mean early warrior. His axe rush is impressive. But he has no unique fighter unit, or special upgrade to his units. ORG allows him to maintain a bigger army, and more land/infra, but that has to be procured first.

You gotta win those "games in hand".