11 Wildly Popular Strategies To Avoid

ndthsmdy

Warlord
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
164
[Note: this article should really be titled "11 Wildly Popular Addictions To Avoid." My brain was just fried when I posted the first installment, and I couldn't think of a better word than "strategies." Hopefully this will get fixed soon.]

Remember how easy it was in Civ 3 to rely on wonders like the GL or Darwin to provide overpowered benefits at key points in the game? And then you'd jump up a level or two, get beaten to those key wonders, and be totally lost at how to win without them?

If anything, I think Civ 4 has introduced even more potentially addictive behaviors than Civ 3. Not only have the unique benefits of wonders been overhauled by lessening the benefits in some cases and changing the circumstances in which you acquire those benefits in others, but the major benefits that once used to belong solely to wonders have been spread out to include leader traits, civics, and even early tech choices (e.g., forest chopping or founding a religion). This article considers eleven particularly popular tactics that will easily ensure victory at a lower difficulty level, but for which you are likely to get reamed at Monarch or above.

I do not advocate that you abandon these civics/wonders/etc. completely, merely that they be used for reasons other than simply because they've ruled at lower difficulty levels. My point is simply to argue that incorporating any of these parts of the game into your "strategy" will severely limit your capabilities at higher ability levels.
 
1) The Incas

HC is the perfect leader if you are a newbie or are not sure what type of game/victory you want. Want to do some warmongering? Pick a crowded Pangaea map and enjoy your Aggressive trait and Quechuas. Want to be rolling in commerce and run away with a space race? You're Financial. Want to be a religionmonger and build a shrine to increase the effects of your Financial trait? You start with Mysticism. Given how important terrain and available resources have become, HC will likely turn in a solid performance at a manageable difficulty level no matter what kind of start you are given--just leverage the appropriate strength early and watch yourself pull away at the end.

The higher you go in difficulty level, however, the more HC becomes a jack-of-all-trades-but-king-of-none, similar to the Germans in Civ 3. Warmongering, commercemongering, and religionmongering are three very different things in this game, and the luxury of changing horses in midstream will not follow you as you advance to Monarch and above. Don't expect to be able to take a warlike approach for the first 4000 years, realize that you have no Iron or Horses, then switch to a commerce track and pull off a space race victory. Picking a course early in a higher difficulty game will necessitate your sticking with it, because the AIs are cheating and you will not be able to catch up if you start late.

If you want to warmonger, you might as well play Caesar or Tokugawa; if you want to win the space race, you might as well play Washington or Elizabeth; if you want to religionmonger, you might as well play Izzy. Playing any of these civs is a roll of the dice (Caesar needs to have Iron, and Izzy needs a high commerce start, for example), but so too is HC. It's easy to see a start that begs founding an early religion only to discover that you should have been cranking your military advantage. Ultimately, you can't do both and win. HC is hard to play at higher difficulties.

2) Forest Chop/Fast Expansion

This is one of the few strategies in this article that remains effective to some degree at higher difficulty levels, due to the disproportionate advantage it gives you in the early game. However, I think it is a dangerous strategy to adopt as gospel.

The strategy is predicated on an expansion-oriented early game, as well as limiting one's early tech options (i.e., beeline to BW). An expansion-oriented early game, by definition, is not a military-oriented, commerce-oriented, or religion-oriented early game. If you have a leader that is suited to any of these early game strategies, you are failing to leverage your strengths at the most important time (i.e., when the AI has its biggest advantage and runs the risk of pulling away from you, due to the exponential bonuses that arise from having a lead in this game). You are also limiting the growth of your capital, which according to the map script is almost certainly guaranteed to be an immensely profitable city in some regard.

The new patch (1.52) has given pause to indiscrimate chops, due to the slightly increased health of forests. It is still profitable to rely on chops to make use of otherwise wasted land, and I still always look to leverage an early chop rush if I am in a heavily forested start/choose a civ that begins with Mining. It's also important to focus on expansion if you are on a Pangaea or Continents map with close neighbors. The downsides of choosing this early strategy, however, are still there, and can still spell your doom long before you ever realize that you should have invested your early energy in something other than beelining straight to a Worker and Bronze Working.

3) Founding A Religion

It's pretty tempting to want to found a religion, especially if you've been a fan of the other three editions of the series. After all, this is a completely new dimension of gameplay, which has the potential to create financial stability, cultural supremacy, and make game-long friends. What else could you ask for?

The answer is, a lot, depending on who you're playing as and what kind of start you're given. The increased AI tech speed at higher difficulty levels means that there's not much point in going for an early religion unless you already start with Mysticism. And even then, you're neglecting valuable techs in your first turns that could give you a military advantage or a productive early Worker. Just as commiting to a forest-fueled expansion rush limits your early capabilities, so too does founding a religion prevent you from pursuing potentially more lucrative early game goals. I guarantee if you found one of the early religions on a high difficulty level and happen to be next to Alexander, it will not take long before he completely cripples your ability to win the game, in which case all the potential benefits of having an early religion do you little good.

It also takes considerable effort to manage a religion effectively. Building Monastaries and Missionaries (or running the expensive Organized Religion civic while still spending builds on Missionaries), orchestrating GP production to ensure a Great Prophet to build a Shrine, placating potentially disgruntled neighbors--all of these are costs on top of the early tech commitent that comes with founding a religion. While manageable at lower difficulty levels, it becomes harder and harder to neglect military, production, and commerce the higher you go. Often it's more profitable to build a Barracks and rush several Swords to take a holy city than to create one yourself.

4) The Oracle

Darwin in the Classical era. I've read several posts from players explaining how they've orchestrated their Oracle builds so they get the most expensive tech possible from building it (Civil Service is a favorite). Depending on such a long lag time as well as being able to afford a beeline to such an expensive tech is simply ridiculous at higher difficulty levels.

Even if you have Marble and a high production city to build it in, the Oracle is cheap enough that some Industrious and/or Marble-possessing civ is likely to get to it extremely early. In which case, you are better off focusing on something else, other than gearing your entire production and economy toward gaining one relatively cheap tech.

When should you take a crack at the Oracle? Definitely if you are Industrious. Probably if you have forests to chop. Marble is nice, but taking the time to spit out a Worker and hook it up before you start may close your window. When shouldn't you? If you are on a crowded map or next to an agressive civ (Settlers and military). If the Pyramids are a better build. If you're not going to get that expensive/useful a tech anyway. If your civ/start means that wasting time on Mysticism>Polytheism as one of your first techs is not a good idea. And most importantly, if you can't/don't get started early.
 
5) Creative Leaders/Stonehenge

Creative leaders have their perks, but I was surprised to see a poll on this site which had Creative leaders the second most popular behind Philosophical. From the perspective of playing at a higher difficulty level, the benefits of Creative are pretty much limited to the early game--i.e., the time when the AI is cheating and ahead of you anyway. It is still good to have on a crowded map, but choosing Creative essentially amounts to using one of your leader traits to not fall as far behind in a certain area, as opposed to one that persists throughout the game and will lead you to victory.

One of the other most-cited reasons for not going Creative is that Stonehenge performs the border expansion for you at half the pace (and a cheap price), while guaranteeing an early Great Prophet and centering you on the map to boot. Of the three early Wonders (Stonehenge, Oracle, Pyramids), I would argue that their benefits are much more closely aligned to the cost of building them (120, 150, 450 on Normal speed respectively) at Monarch or above than on lower difficulty levels. Being able to run Representation early at Monarch (science and happiness will be your two biggest concerns after you've built a military) is far more powerful than getting a cheap tech for free, which is probably slightly more powerful than automatic ten turn border expansion (until Calendar, which you will need far earlier at higher difficulties). You also, once again, need to get on Stonehenge early to get it--you need a Worker, Bronze Working, and Mysticism, and that still might not be enough to stop Gandhi from beating you.

Overall, Stonehenge (as well as the Oracle) are probably overpowered at lower levels--you can get a religion, take your time getting to it as long as you chop, and get the benefits of one or both (as well as an early shrine) with a low risk of falling behind or getting whacked for not having spent your hammers on something better. Meanwhile, the Pyramids do not have as pronounced an effect (though the early Great Engineer is nice) and a prohibitive cost as well--why spend 450 when the 120 or 150 is a better bargain? Up against a cheating AI, however, the value of Stonehenge and the Oracle go down, while the Pyramids become much more attractive. If you plan to go for an early wonder on Monarch, which one you choose becomes a much more nuanced decision.

6) Philosophical Leaders + Parthenon

When I started playing the game, one of the first things I did was go Philosophical, rush to the Parthenon, plop down a bunch of farms, and run away from the Warlord/Noble AI with my GPs. It didn't matter that the Parthenon expired at Chemistry, because I'd already won by then. It wasn't even close.

GPs have considerable diversity if you are able to generate the kinds you want, and have a use no matter what type of victory you are going for. There are a couple things that are going to hinder your ability to produce as many GPs as you did on Noble though, the most important of which is the increased importance of production and commerce. Failing to keep a good military and/or failing to keep up in the tech race is ultimately the cause of losing any game, and choosing to emphasize food/specialists in one or more of your cities ultimately means you are not emphasizing production or commerce there (with the exception of the food bonuses, almost all tiles that are high food can also become high commerce). Engineers, Scientists, and Merchants make up some of the ground, of course, but in some (if not most) cases it will be more efficient to just make your high food city into a high commerce city.

I don't mean to imply that Philosophical civs are less powerful on higher levels--Woundedknight has already shown in his article that a Philosophical civ can excel at the higher difficulties, so it is certainly good enough to help get the job done. But getting the Parthenon is subject to the same pitfalls as the other early wonders, and it can be argued that the Pyramids (for 50 hammers more) encourage the use of specialists just as much, while giving you Representation and highly desirable Engineer points instead of Artist points. Ultimately, I think a Philosophical + Parthenon tactic is not a good one to choose if you are just getting your feet wet at Monarch--it will require a lot more skill to pull off than simply pushing for production and commerce (or the Pyramids).

7) Financial Leaders + Kremlin

There's no way I can argue that going for the Kremlin is a bad idea if you are a Financial civ, if you have high commerce like you should, and if you have the production capacity in one of your cities to beat the AI to it.

There are times when it might not be as good an idea as some other move. Like not having met all three of those conditions. Another strong reason to not go for the Kremlin at Monarch or above would be if you are in a neck-and-neck tech race (as you probably will be). Communism is a dead-end tech, and there are several of military techs to be gained at this point in the game, including most of the modern navy units, Artillery, and Infantry. It's one thing to fall behind a tech or two, and an entirely different thing to fall behind a military tech or two. Communism, of course, is needed eventually (spies), but rushing to it could mean somebody grabs Assembly Line at the same time and renders your military less-than-modern. You will be able to compensate by buying units, of course, but you are still behind in military techs and have to catch up. The Kremlin remains a powerful wonder capable of pushing your civ over the top, but only in the right situation (such as a one or two tech lead).
 
(reserved)

8) Organized Religion
9) State Property
10) Bureaucracy
11) Three Gorges Dam
 
ndthsmdy said:
1) The Incas

I don't think choosing a particular leader is a strategy, any more than regenerating the map over and over until you get one you like is a strategy. Or just giving yourself extra goodies in the worldbuilder. Strategy is about playing the position you're in, not choosing the position you want to be in.
 
DaviddesJ said:
I don't think choosing a particular leader is a strategy, any more than regenerating the map over and over until you get one you like is a strategy. Or just giving yourself extra goodies in the worldbuilder. Strategy is about playing the position you're in, not choosing the position you want to be in.

I think choosing your leader should be part of your strategy.
 
The article is really about things you can do in the game--choosing a certain civ or leader trait, or relying on a certain civic--that won't always fly at higher levels yet have the potential to become addictive.

I titled it the way I did because it was late at night and I couldn't think of a more concise way to express the above sentence :)
 
I agree that HC is a more newbie-friendly than leaders like Asoka or Mao Zedong, however, but I tried HC on Noble on a Continents map and happened to be next to Ghengis Khan. With this war-like neighbor and a Warrior based unique unit that is +100% vs. archers I decided to "rush" the Mongolians capital with its presence of archers.
The city was located on floodplains with a river on three sides so I attacked the archers with my Quechuas on the city's unprotected side (now +125% vs archers from Cover) and after about ten sieges one after another I still could not take out the city's two fortified archers.
Although this is just one anecdote from one particular player who is relatively new to Civ 4 but not the series, I proceeded to get raped by the Mongolian Chariots soon after this failed siege and realized that one should not entirely rely on an UU regardless of its specific traits and that the best approach to combat in Civ 4 is unit mix and variety, rather than sheer numbers.
Thanks for a great post that really provokes thought.
 
I don't think that any of those strategies need to be avoided if you know what you're doing. You just need to prioritize a little more on the higher levels but you can still use them. For example, you could found a religion to keep people happy while you concentrate on military build up because Alexander is picking on you.

In fact, founding a religion on the higher difficulty levels is almost necessary because of the happy face it provides in each city that contains your religion.

All of the things you mentioned are part of the game, so why can't you use/do them?
 
I don't even see the point of this thread because all of these things are just parts of the game, not even strategies.
 
homeyg said:
I don't think that any of those strategies need to be avoided if you know what you're doing.

Your first quote is exactly the point: my intent is not to suggest that you shouldn't use these civics/wonders/etc, merely to advocate their prudent use. And I would argue that gearing your gameplay toward acquiring these "parts of the game" for no reason other than thinking they're great amounts to a (mediocre) strategy.

When I finish this article later I will edit it to more accurately reflect this.
 
...gearing your gameplay toward acquiring these "parts of the game" for no reason other than thinking they're great amounts to a (mediocre) strategy.

This is something that all good CivIII players learn not to do.
 
I'm pretty sure that ndthsmdy is just saying that you shouldn't rely too much on certain aspects of the game, else you cripple your ability to play well and adapt. However, I think this is true for almost ANY aspect of the game. Lean too far in one direction, and you neglect the other at your own risk.
 
I think this is a good article (rest to come as of yet) because I understand what he means by it. As a Civ 4 newbie (got in for Christmas), I already know not to forest chop like mad (forests are also pretty nifty later on), and building the Oracle to get an otherwise expensive tech isn't really worth it all up.

Stonehenge is great AFAIK, so it'll be interesting to know a downside to it.
 
an interesting point, for sure.
if the above (can be) bad, what is considered good?
 
Mongoloid Cow said:
Stonehenge is great AFAIK, so it'll be interesting to know a downside to it.

One problem with Stonehenge is the same problem with any other Wonder - they're expensive. A very good argument could be made that using those hammers to produce a settler and a couple of units puts you in a better position in the long run.

(Check out the great CivIII article on beating the Wonder addiction. The details have changed but the general concepts holds.)
 
In the Civ3 War Academy there is an article called The Four Rules to Wonder Addiction. It is a guide designed to help players that have (or may) become addicted to certain wonders or wonder strategies (like ToE->Hoover). The article makes it clear that it is not so much that these wonders/wonder strategies are bad, its just that players sometimes think that they are good enough to warrant getting every game. Obviously, no wonder is good enough to warrant getting every game.

I think ndthsmdy is trying to do here is establish a similar article for Civ4. He isn't saying that these strategies / wonders / whatever are bad, hes just encouraging people to remember that they are not the be all-end all of the game.

First post btw - long time lurker though.
 
iwas said:
In the Civ3 War Academy there is an article called The Four Rules to Wonder Addiction. It is a guide designed to help players that have (or may) become addicted to certain wonders or wonder strategies (like ToE->Hoover). The article makes it clear that it is not so much that these wonders/wonder strategies are bad, its just that players sometimes think that they are good enough to warrant getting every game. Obviously, no wonder is good enough to warrant getting every game.

I think ndthsmdy is trying to do here is establish a similar article for Civ4. He isn't saying that these strategies / wonders / whatever are bad, hes just encouraging people to remember that they are not the be all-end all of the game.

First post btw - long time lurker though.

Yeah, the Wonder Addiction article is my favorite article by Ision. Unfortunetely, I don't think Ision comes here anymore to share his wisdom.

What I'm saying about this article is that none of these strategies, since most work to some degree, need to be avoided completely. I know that if you rely on one strategy, you are only going to know how to play the game when you get a start/leader that corresponds with that strategy.
 
Prince David said:
One problem with Stonehenge is the same problem with any other Wonder - they're expensive. A very good argument could be made that using those hammers to produce a settler and a couple of units puts you in a better position in the long run.

(Check out the great CivIII article on beating the Wonder addiction. The details have changed but the general concepts holds.)

Actually, both Stonehenge and The Oracle don't share that problem. They're extremely cheap and the AI usually doesn't bother building Stonehenge. I had a few games where I decided not to get Stonehenge early on Noble and still got it anyway in the end. They both barely cost more than a settler and actually cost a lot less if you have the appropriate resource.
 
Top Bottom