Rant : The annoying BS factor of CIV IV

The original poster should read obsolete's game, because he wins without cheating with early rushes.

If you're teching up to construction and presumably code of laws, that's not a particularly early rush, and you could probably build granaries by then. I'm assuming you're skipping alphabet and possibly monarchy? And elephants require horseback riding in BTS, I think, so that's really a mid-game attack.

I've been playing montezuma immortal warlords on a small map, because while conquering is easy with catapults, HOF deity level players apparently can pull off wins a lot earlier. They get things that I don't, apparently they know how to deal with protective leaders or mansa musa on hills or getting cities before 60% culture pops.

To me the game is about understanding the nuances. Obviously what I do understand seems obvious, and what I don't isn't. I like the process of being a better player and learning about the game, and I see these forums as a way to help each other do it.

Let me start here, since maybe you understand warring very well. Other than worker techs, what's your tech path? Are you running 2 scientists early to get to construction?
 
Heya,

Sorry about delayed responses. Life has been really stressful lately. Been more than i could handle at the moment.

A lot of positive feedback, I get the feeling a lot people feel the same as me in many areas of the game. I'll write more in a little and try to answer your questions.

Thanks!
 
So yeah i'll try to post something now..

My timing to goto war?

Irrelevant. My timing to goto war is when im stronger than my opponents are. War is like expanding, except it is more beneficial for a number of reasons:

1. The area around your high-level AI opponent is likely to be rich, especially when a war is aimed early and it bases around Capital city and a few other rich cities.

2. It gives you the edge over your opponents, a larger landmass and eliminates rivals on nearby areas.

3. Blackmail, the few remaining cities the AI has in remote locations are great for blackmailing techs.

If you are an experienced player building an optimal amount of troops to make war is the most vital part of it. You do not want to get stuck on the countryside assaulted by horse archers and siege equipment to wear your ability to make war down. Secure the strategic keypoints of the map with small stacks advance with larger force. Do not allow AI use its roads to hit and run you down. You are not there to pillage the land, you are there to take everything he has. Seperating AI from his resources has nothing to do with real pillaging and crippling. It's smart play.

Empty areas

I could imagine people knew better. These are not just great places to settle late cities or let AI settle their cities on wasteland, but if you can isolate an empty area behind you, use it! With barracks, and possibly aggressive/charismastic trait you are one barbarian fight away from City Raider II Promotion. Or elephants, being immune to first strikes. It gives you the edge! Do not settle what doesn't need to be settled!

My tech-path

This was the most tricky question of all, as I cannot even remember the available tech-paths. Been so long since i've played. It doesn't matter because there is no need for optimal tech path. Maybe i did fast tech to construction for catapults. I remember not building great library. Didn't stop me from winning did it? I always run 2 scientists on cities, even marginal ones. Why? Because they give a ton of beakers compared to sad resources like wine or dye that come late in the game. I'm not waiting for my great engineer. Im going as fast as i can for the first great scientist. I do not have any faith in slingshots, fast maces or stuff like that. You simply don't need to risk your game for them.


I hope this helped any! Thanks!
 
The Early Rush is a great strategy, since it achieves what you pointed out, well, early! :D It gives you a long-term advantage, as long as you don't botch it up.

Undergoing military defeats due to poor planning will result in one of two outcomes:
1) You are put into a drawn out war. Screws up diplomacy with other Civs, and strains your economy to the point you are unable to tech fast enough to maintain an advantage. It results in MAD for both Civs involved.

2) You make peace. Sounds good, but usually sucks. Because you spent all the previous turns making units, you have a poor economy since Libraries, Granaries, Workers, and Settlers have been forgone for the potential benefits of a won war.

Outcome 2 can be resolved by careful planning, but even if you make peace in Outcome 1, you've destroyed your potential growth and have achieved Outcome 2 in an era where it is unresolvable.
 
Plus in an early war it's harder for the computer to dog pile you for inane reasons forcing you to kill them earlier then planned.
 
I noticed somebody asked for a tutorial.

This would be time consuming, no? Especially explained step-by-step. I am not a master of this game, I cannot guarantee anybody would get anything out of it. I can't remember the last time I played. Top of all I have no idea how to picture/explain you everything. I don't think i could beat a deity computer if you are asking for a tutorial for world records. I am barely a regular player.
 
Interesting and refreshing post. It shows humankind still make raw materials to produce a Ghengis Khan, an Alexander the Great, a Machiavelli... But since we in the meantime has got Civ, there should be no reason to fear an immediate attack on Poland.

And as Hooliday points out; he was high and drunk. Also in this aspect he follows an ancient tradition: Never was a war fought by sober men.

I can recognize some well known points in this post. Other aspects are so far away from what I have experienced, I cannot swallow this with head, fur an tails before I can see how it is done. And it seems others see it the same way.

I do not ask for at tutorial, just some saves to illustrate the principles and enlighten us who do not have understood a thing – cowards or not. So I hope Hooliday will spend the necessary time to play another game according to the principles he describes, and share a few saves with us.
 
I noticed somebody asked for a tutorial.

This would be time consuming, no? Especially explained step-by-step. I am not a master of this game, I cannot guarantee anybody would get anything out of it. I can't remember the last time I played. Top of all I have no idea how to picture/explain you everything. I don't think i could beat a deity computer if you are asking for a tutorial for world records. I am barely a regular player.



Nobody is a 'master' player, people make 'walkthroughs' for games, but they are not perfect. Not many people could make a walkthrough to cover every aspect of this game as it has a way to make every game different.


It may be time-consuming, but if you have time to come on forums, surely you have time to write a non-important walkthrough?
 
Slingshots, early rushes, UU-zergs are all nice things to try once, because you know when you can master it, you can use it when its needed.

Think of a great football player (I refuse to call it soccer because americans stole the name for their brawl-ball sports :lol: ). This football player tries the same trick every time he gets the chance to to score, now obviously goalkeepers learn and they all learn what to do. There is no doubt this player is absolutely great at this particular trick but he is nowhere near as good player as the player who can execute this trick when it's needed.

It's a simplification of my "Civ-philosophy" really. Gambits and gimmicks are good for learning to a certain extent but will eventually hold you back if they are abused. Until you know most of the game, learn. When you know most of the game, learn what you still do not know.

To simplify it even further, unless I play a "theme-game" with objectives I made up myself there is only one rule I play by: Adapt. Even if you are the greatest builder ever, if the Mongols are rapidly eating Civilization after Civilization and getting closer to your borders - you get ready for war to face him or you die. Unless you can get a fast alternative victory before he eradicate you.
 
You bring up a lot of good points, like what you said about players RELYING on certain things to win them the game, whether that be Pyramids, Praetorians, the Feudalism slingshot, etc. That is not a good thing to do.

However, you make quite an ass out of yourself and it's clear that you at least halfway made this post to show off your own supposed skill. The first half of your post was fine, you were referring to situations that others might be in, and giving advice and pointing out flaws. However, you quickly degenerate into a "I conquered the whole AI in a dozen turns on WTFIMBA difficulty," and "Everyone else sucks at this game," and then at the end you say that you "suck but you could take the AI on Immortal the first time you played this game." To me, that's not the definition of "sucking." If it's easy to you, that doesn't mean you suck. Some people just have natural tendencies to be better at things than others.

To address your "rant," (see: boast) you are free to play the game how you want to play it. Just because you can win a domination victory on Immortal easily doesn't mean that the way I play and fail miserably on Monarch trying for a culture win is the wrong way to play. It's challenging and fun for me, and I'm always learning, so yeah, go ahead and give advice about rushing on Immortal. If I ever want to try to win like that, I'll take a look.

One last thing that I (and others I'm sure) take offense to: You accuse this whole community of save-reloading to get a perfect starting location, to get the best combat results, to not lose scouts early, etc. How dare you make such a blanket statement. I know I can speak for plenty of people when I say that many of us don't do that. To me, doing that gives the game more of an artificial feel, and it's less gratifying when I accomplish something if I've set myself up perfectly for it. I will admit, sometimes I get frustrated with the RNG and reload, but anytime I'm doing that means that I'm losing. Almost without fail, I end up losing that game anyway. I NEVER reload my starting location.
 
Ya when I see someone has built the pyramids online it puts a big bulls eye on them since it means they haven't built as many troops. When someone is Roman you expect a rush and put cities on hills and churn out axes.
 
One note: even if you do pick an apparent "super rush civ" or w/e like Egypt, there's no guarantee that you will even get the resources to build your UU!!! I picked Egypt in the game I am currently playing in part because I really enjoy having a strong UU... but I started near Rome who not only gets Iron for Praets but also TWO HORSES!!! :cry:

So that sux... but meh, he made the mistake of invading me and I am beginning to finally win our age long war ;)

Also I was reminded of how nice the Spiritual and Creative traits are - Spiritual is nice for fast temples (a few religions in my cities) besides the no anarchy of course, and I love creative for getting my cities the land they need STAT.

Aside from that I picked a few posts and responded:

I noticed somebody asked for a tutorial.

This would be time consuming, no? Especially explained step-by-step. I am not a master of this game, I cannot guarantee anybody would get anything out of it. I can't remember the last time I played. Top of all I have no idea how to picture/explain you everything. I don't think i could beat a deity computer if you are asking for a tutorial for world records. I am barely a regular player.

If you can't even remember the last time you played you hardly seem relevant.

...reminds me of a game called colonization. You build up an empire, troops etc then when you declare independence the home country launches its attack on you...

Hail Colonization! I really enjoyed that game when I was younger, cool to see someone else remembers it :lol:

...Part of playing this game is adapting. If someone does use Rome it is up to your ingenuity and creativity to stop the all powerful Praetorian, or Immortal or War Chariot...

This isn't real groundbreaking but it seems like the Native American civ would be a real strong counter to Rome... what with buffed archers and a sick ownage unique unit (gotta love those +100% vs melee dog soldiers).
 
If you can't even remember the last time you played you hardly seem relevant.

QFT.

Stating that you haven't played the game in longer than you can remember (and given the admission that you were high and drunk when you wrote the post, perhaps you played last week) just demonstrates even more so that you came here to troll, realize what a fool you've made of yourself, and are now trying to back out of it.

Whatever dude - some good discussion came out of it, so there is that....
 
One last thing that I (and others I'm sure) take offense to: You accuse this whole community of save-reloading to get a perfect starting location, to get the best combat results, to not lose scouts early, etc. How dare you make such a blanket statement. I know I can speak for plenty of people when I say that many of us don't do that. To me, doing that gives the game more of an artificial feel, and it's less gratifying when I accomplish something if I've set myself up perfectly for it. I will admit, sometimes I get frustrated with the RNG and reload, but anytime I'm doing that means that I'm losing. Almost without fail, I end up losing that game anyway. I NEVER reload my starting location.
I once lost a game on the 10th or 12th turn because I had my warrior exploring and Montezuma's warrior came into my undefended city. That game I seriously considered reloading. Other than that, I've never thought about a save-reload, let alone doing one.

There are players who save-reload on a regular basis. I'm sure there's even a few who use the world builder to give themselves fantastic starting locations. However, I believe that most of us don't do that sort of thing. It's like cheating at solitaire. What's the purpose of making sure you win every time? Cheating may appeal to some people, but I'm sure it's a small minority. Either that, or I'm extremely naive.
 
QFT = Quoted For Truth
 
QFT.

Stating that you haven't played the game in longer than you can remember (and given the admission that you were high and drunk when you wrote the post, perhaps you played last week) just demonstrates even more so that you came here to troll, realize what a fool you've made of yourself, and are now trying to back out of it.

Whatever dude - some good discussion came out of it, so there is that....

you sum him up.
 
Now, this post is more of a rant than anything else. If you find aggressive methods of talking something not suitable for you, back off. This is thread is sincerely meant to talk about the bulls*it factors of the game. I am only a casual player and after a lot of reading here I felt need to bring some things up.

Arguement :
The actual level of play. It's horrid. It's absolutely horrid. Anything below Emperor is meant for players who do not understand the game. Don't be offended. It doesn't mean you are incapable of learning or stupid if you don't agree with my sentence. Majority of players cannot beat emperor.

Answer : People need to realize the key to playing CIV is understanding the game. Not simply pulling through a strategy in 6000 years long struggle. The biggest morons are the ones who choose Rome, Egypt or Persia to pursue your goals. You use cheap tactics (UU Is horsecrap) to beat the weak AI. It cannot compete against your save-reloads and perfect starting spot. The AI Cannot beat you in game that is made to favour you. Especially on lower difficulty levels. Even immortal level AI is so handicapped with its huge armies its unbeliveable. Emperor computer can find barbs hard, you understand where im getting into? You need to learn to adapt. You need to understand whats the best way to safe the first 10 turns and have long sight on your actions. You have to understand and manage the events that will occur in the game, not time your strategy perfect. A clever player doesn't go through his/hers game thinking about "The pyramids, i cannot play without them". Good player thinks, Where are the pyramids? Could I possibly conquer them and double my landmass. A good player is greedy in his/hers actions.

Understand the fact each grid in the game serves a purpose. Don't think about the city in 200 turns. Think about it in the following 10-50 turns. The fact you need to be able to exploit it as soon as possible even if it means ignoring resources. You do it because you need swift advantage over the AI. Your science rating will go up by degrees. Meaning making calculated decisions and conquering a lot of land from the AI. Many people think you need to place to city to contain as many resources as possible. No, you need the city to be an early powerhouse. In near future you'll build another next to it. 2 Moderate cities. This is of course if you make it long enough. Smart people will understand this will almost triple your future potency when the conquered AI and your old landmass is combined.

Arguement : AI Cabality

AI is a gigantic ass and a moron in CIV IV. It's only there to be exploited. I was earlier playing a game on immortal level, where i had standard sized continents map. I started out having 3 cities, there was no need of building more. Any more would have only had damaging effect on me. I battled the nearest AI with major (But affordable) attacking force and completely overwhelmed it. The AI had nothing to attack with, it never does when you do things right. The looser walled and locked himself in even when he had me surrounded in landmass. There wasn't no casual attacks on mines or resources. Not even border cities. I had everything guarded and securing the main strategic points of the map kept the AI at bay. (Yes, the AI does a lot of math and calculates if attack is worth doing). Like i said, you only exploit it. I conquered everything with hardly any losses. My total landmass increased to 10% from a few %. Next to me was Washington who had meanwhile surrounded me all over, with biggest landmass of 15%. I launched assault on towards his strongpoints and easily gained his most important holdings. Even with all the cities surrounding me he was not able to launch not single counter attack. Meanwhile i had only been teching and super-rushing the conquered lands with whipping and chopping. Using the right grids. I turned a malfunctioning . .. .. .. . empire into gigantic powerhouse in matter of a dozen turns.

Now what did i have there? Do the math.

Time to tech my homeland
experienced, strong attacking force, defensive force
Conquered capital and the best chosen locations for extra cities. I razed all the stuck-up cities.

What i didn't have : Few barely able-to-upkeep-themselves cities with pyramids and weak force to call upon the AI to launch its mass invasion from all border areas. To cripple you, not conquer. You have to take the fight to him/her.


Arguement/Answer : Strategies

This is the biggest BS factor of the game. Chariot rushes, egyptian chariot rushes, praetorian rushes. And top of all quechua rush. I'd laugh my ass off if you were forced to win just one game when all your luxuries and choosings would be taken away. Play leaders like montezuma or alexander to understand the game. Spirituality is the stronggest trait of the game for a leader that doesn't hold any aces in his pockets. Philosophical is a great trait. I hate coin economy. I only do specialists. Financial is . .. .. .. .. Play with your cottages if you wish to. Whipping/Civics/Specialists are the art. Allow you to swiftly turn wasteland into cities. You might find it funny to exploit easy money, I don't.
If you have to rely on anything but a random civ, you really just aren't good. I do choose my civ, but i can manage without. I play "seemingly weak" leaders. Oh, im sorry you don't have your praetorians conquering all the world for you. Whats the point of that? Play equal fight on equal battlefield and show your better than your opponent. Unique buildings are a great thing, generally. Any building is. People do not understand the value of half-priced universities or promoted units but only look at the simple side of the game. The overall grinding of the map. Play random civ, first start if you want to prove anything to yourself. I see a dozen of games here that groups play. Let me first say, they are ass. A chariot rush never fails or scout lives all the way to 2000 AD. On immortal your likely to run into at least two animals at once every turn, meaning you have to slow down the scout or seek for 75% cover. Last time i was on forrested cliff i ran into a lion and a 2 Speed puma finished it on the same turn. Thats life guys, you lose sometimes. Your telling me you don't reload? I laugh at that, stop cheating yourself. The scout is likely to die, its just matter of how hard you can make it for the enemy to kill it. Use skip turn, walk one turn, seek for cover. You might get him to live and do the important part of fogbusting when you rush with a settler. Then again, he might die too. Your chariots might die too, crippling you. Likely they will die at immortal. Maybe you should build immortals? You know, AI can't beat them. Proven it a million times. With immortals you don't criple yourself even if you have to pull back from a war because you just go for the weakest opponent with best cities. Get real, you don't have to rely on luck. Rely on knowledge and math. Know your opponent, know what he can be or cannot beat. It's not sad to rush with swords and catapults. it's the right thing to do. I think most people here prefer it to as "Axe rush". I just dont like to give any offensive tactic a name. It means its been used once. You adapt. Maybe you need siege weapons maybe not. You need to know it before going in.

There are dozens of threads about cultural victories and and stuff like that. are you guys cowards or something. the worst part is when you lose with your strategy against a weak computer, lol. With creative minds, this can be taken as far as beating deity. But admit it. As an average player you probably did it by copying somebody here. New players don't think about cultural victories :). My buddy can beat a prince computer after i showed him a quarter or game-well-played. He didn't even understand the meaning of buildings. He just chose to use praetorians when he found them from civiliopedia. I had so much fun watching him whip the AI's. And people actually here tell its hard. Im not saying my friend is a monkey or stupid, but he adapted in matter of hours. It's because he was taught to understand the game. He couldnt perform great but he didnt do amateur mistakes either, that are greedy settling of cities and building the wrong things in them. Use them for their purposes.


Conclusion : THIS IS A RANT. I am not a genious. Im actually very stupid person but i could take immortal level computer on BTS on first try. And that was after 6 months pause. Im ranting, for your good. To make you a better player. I don't care, i barely play CIV anymore. Besides with a couple of friends in internet. I suck, bad. But i understand the game, and thats what its all about.

Thanks!


Just one question...how much did you have to drink when you typed this?
 
Top Bottom