Recent content by Tarindel

I used to hate not starting next to the sea, but I've found that when you start inland (I'm talking about far inland, not just 1 or 2 spaces), you just have to play things a little different. The advantages of being inland: 1) You can ignore your navy. 2) You can expand in 4 directions instead...

My least favorite thing about Civ4 is the icon driven interface -- having to select what I want to build via icon SUCKS. I always try and use the menus.

I love jungles. There are two reasons: 1) Future expansion -- The AI knows that jungles aren't a great place to put cities, so it'll go for just about everything else first. That means jungle is land that will generally not be expanded on until there's nothing left, allowing you to focus on...

I generally micromanage my workers until I have about 6 or 7 of them, and then I put a few on auto and continue micromanaging the rest. The ones on auto are there to pick up on anything I miss (eg. I farmed a rice, but forgot to make a route, etc...)

Stone for the win. With Stone, I can usually get the Pyramids. With Stone and Industrious, I can get the Pyramids with no sweat. Stone stone stone stone Stone. Stone stone.

I almost always seem to get stuck in games with Alexander or Ghengis, and Monty. In my current game, Monty just declared war on me because I wouldn't give him a free tech, and is now attacking me through another civ using open borders. As was said so well in the movie Dazed and Confused...

The thing is, iron seems to be a lot more common than stone. I rarely play a game where I don't have iron, and in the games where I didn't have iron, it was easily obtainable because it was sitting just off my border, out in the middle of some unoccupied ice-patch, or I could trade for it. I...

I've had great success with this strategy at all different difficulty levels. Last time I played, I turned it into a cultural victory instead of a space race victory just for kicks. Do you cities really increase in maintainance cost as they grow? I always let my cities grow where they can...

FWIW, I should add that I generally play a financial/expansionist (chop/build settlers) low-militaristism strategy with Catherine (pretty much Synex's strategy as he lays it out here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147012. I should not that I find maps with stone to be more...

Does anybody else agree that have a stone resource (especially if you start with it in close proximity to your starting city) is too powerful? Besides producing a plethora of production if it's within your city radius, it gives you the ability to produce non-religious wonders at 50% cost...