Advice for my last Civ 4 game

seanm924

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
11
I have played Civ 4 since it came out, and never got past the Warlord level (that might sound really said to some of you). I have decided to quit because it takes up to much of my time, doesn't run well on my computer, and it pisses me off a lot.

I know what reasouch, culture, production, and money are; how combat works; how cities grow. I know about artist, scientist, workers, and all the other stuff like that. I pretty much know how the whole game works, I just suck at it.

So tonight and over the next couple days I'm playing my last game before I get rid of it. I'm going to play on Warlord, continents, temperate climent, and medium sea level, and as the Americans. Any advise?

Thanks.
 
post what your goals are for the game.
what you want to learn, what victory your aiming for etc.
post saves here, so people can comment on what you do wrong/can be improved.
tell people where you think yoiur going wrong. Why cant you get higher level?
are you bieing overun military, do you lag behind in research? Your economy is a mess?
try to be as specific as possible.
 
well i can only do one thing at once effectively. I can build a great army, but then everything else will suck. Also, my reasurch always seems to lag behind even when its on 100% and i have universities, libraries, observatories, and lots of scientists.

I never seem to have enough workers either.
 
well i can only do one thing at once effectively. I can build a great army, but then everything else will suck. Also, my reasurch always seems to lag behind even when its on 100% and i have universities, libraries, observatories, and lots of scientists.

I never seem to have enough workers either.

you should build more workers then, and start cottaging more and earlier.

you don't need a large army. you need a good army just large enough to conguer your neighbours and to repel invaders. A large army will hurt your economy.

did you read the strategy guides on the forum about city specialization?
 
Have you ever tried playing wrong?

I have a friend and I always kick my friends ass at new games because I adapt faster. And my trick is one that I picked up studying chess, often times I will do something because I am sure it is wrong. Ill ask myself what is the best move and I will do the opposite. Instead of trying to refine the perfect tactic I search for the worst tactics so I can avoid them. And in this way I find the best way to play when its really on the line. But I am not thinking "what is best" I am think "what came out horrible by test".

I think that avoids the trap. When you get focused on what is best you give to much credit to your assumptions. When you focus on what sucked by test you put the value on experiment. But to really pull it off you essentially have to run around going "I was sure that sucked relative to this other thing--that should be my move"

See in chess a common trap is for people of all skills to play the "right" move without questioning it. And they get stuck at a certain skill level really unable to advance except by sharpening their tactics and working on pulling out endgames that are close. But these people never understand why some players are so much better then them because often times wehre they are loosing it is back where they assumed they knew best from not best. But at that point early in the game there isnt an indication that you just lost. See what I am saying. To really advance once you get stuck you have to make moves that are wrong or used to be certainly wrong. If the game doesnt immediately beat you over the head with "this is loosing" then its a viable move even if its against all your instincts. And if you plateaued you really should be suspicious of anything that is against your instincts because your instincts are failing you.

Its hard to explain. But the key once you plateau like you describe is just do the opposite of what you are sure of. Reexplore your assumptions

You remember that seinfield where george started doing the opposite of his inclination cause George is always inclined to do the wrong thing. That is the trick to rapid adaption.

So anyway your stuck on warlord, been stuck, dont know why. Perfect time to start doing things different simply to be different. Do something you know is wrong and go for it. Your at the chess board and your sense of the board is letting you down so do the opposite. I swear it works.
 
We can't give advice when we don't know what we're giving advice on. We don't know how you play, sure you might know what the improvements do and how hammers, commerce and food work but do you know how to use them best? Do you just go straight for iron working and pump swordsmen? Most important what victory do you want to achieve?

Here's what sharpened my game. I played through the old gauntlets (minor and major).
Because they give you a solid objective from the beginning you know exactly what you need to do. If anything knowing the victory you want to achieve helps articulate what game you get to play. If anything it will tell you the tech tree you're going to use.

My first solid victories in warlord difficulty were diplomatic simply because I knew the tech tree best for it. I knew to go to Mass Media asap but more importantly the more I played for that victory I figured out some great detours to shorten my time (liberalism and music for example).

But if you want that quick answer, it's what Greeneyedzombie says, learn to specialize your cities.
 
Play Modern Era (option under 'custom game'). Settle near oil and on coast, switch civics to: universal, bureaucracy, serfdom, mercantilism, organized religion (until you spread a state religion, then theocracy), set research rate to 0%. Put your starting 3 seals on your 1st build - a transport that you chop+buy finish on turn 2 or 3. Take a capital with these 3. Chop/buy more transports and seals. Supplement with a carrier group. Conquest/Domination Victory.
 
My best advice would be to BE PATIENT on each and every single turn. That means do not hit "next turn" out of laziness just to move the game forward and see what happens next. Just by playing slower, checking your city screens or civics or diplomacy more often, really thinking through each turn, I really started to jump up quickly and I feel like I'm still improving. I used to play this game fast like it was playing an RTS or something, because I was impatient to see the results - I wanted to win! But honestly, this game can take many days to finish if you are playing well. My last game took 16 hours of game play.

But now I really treat it like a game of chess (untimed of course!) and it's a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating, even when I lose or make bad decisions. I would agree with the chess analogy mentioned earlier as well...

Don't give up... and if you're playing as the Americans I would build the Pyramids and switch to representation early, run 2 scientists in your capital, then start building cottages next to rivers. Build at least 2 workers early, and get 3-4 cities up and running, and see how you're doing. If you need more land and there are close neighbors squeezing you in, switch to building military and go knock some heads.
 
Don't play as the Americans. Make it easier on yourself and play as the Romans. Beeline iron working, develop an iron mine, and build Praetorians. They kill everything in the era. This will give you a chance to compete and win.
 
My best advice would be to BE PATIENT on each and every single turn. That means do not hit "next turn" out of laziness just to move the game forward and see what happens next. Just by playing slower, checking your city screens or civics or diplomacy more often, really thinking through each turn, I really started to jump up quickly and I feel like I'm still improving. I used to play this game fast like it was playing an RTS or something, because I was impatient to see the results - I wanted to win! But honestly, this game can take many days to finish if you are playing well. My last game took 16 hours of game play.

But now I really treat it like a game of chess (untimed of course!) and it's a lot more fun and a lot less frustrating, even when I lose or make bad decisions. I would agree with the chess analogy mentioned earlier as well...

Don't give up... and if you're playing as the Americans I would build the Pyramids and switch to representation early, run 2 scientists in your capital, then start building cottages next to rivers. Build at least 2 workers early, and get 3-4 cities up and running, and see how you're doing. If you need more land and there are close neighbors squeezing you in, switch to building military and go knock some heads.

This helps a lot!

I never really go strait for any technology, I just sorta reasurch stuff i need, like mining, agriculture, hunting, bronze working, sailing, archery, etc. Know what i mean?
 
I have played Civ 4 since it came out, and never got past the Warlord level (that might sound really said to some of you). I have decided to quit because it takes up to much of my time, doesn't run well on my computer, and it pisses me off a lot.

I know what reasouch, culture, production, and money are; how combat works; how cities grow. I know about artist, scientist, workers, and all the other stuff like that. I pretty much know how the whole game works, I just suck at it.

So tonight and over the next couple days I'm playing my last game before I get rid of it. I'm going to play on Warlord, continents, temperate climent, and medium sea level, and as the Americans. Any advise?

Thanks.

CIV Is not an abusive drug, although it can be abused so can anything else. Just keep it under control. ;)
 
Except when you swim 2 hrs and day and have a social life too lol

I dont see why that means you can never play video games though.
 
Ok here's the situation...

I'm playing as the Germans on continents on the Warlord level and its about 1400 AD. I set an early goal of fast tracking Liberalism, which I just acheaved.

I have founded Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Islam.

I just finished up a very successful war against the Persians. I was on ok relations with them and had an open boarders agreement. I put a unit in 4 of his main cities including his capital (he only had 5 good cities). He had almost no units in any of them so I launched a massive surprise attack and captured all 4 of them. He never really even resisted, except for launching half-hearted counter attacks that I crusted. I do have to note that his long-bowmen were a major pain in the ass.

Anyway, so I just fought this great war but now I have 4 problems.

1) my economy is in shambles. It was never that good, but I think it is on the verge of collapsing entirely.
2) my military is severely weakened and over stretched.
3) I am in 2nd place, with the Egyptians beating me by about 50-75 points.
4) My reasurch is slowing to a snails pace, mainly due to lack on money.

there is good news though. The Persians couldn't attack me because they're down to 3-4 crappy cities and no money or anything. Also, no one is too pissed off at me, and I doubt I will be attacked.

It's about 1400 and i'm starting to think about how I could win. I don't think I have enough time for a domination victory (and my economy can't survive any more major wars). I doubt cultural is possible, cause it was never my civ's strong suit. I might be able to pull off a points victory, but idk how points are calculated, so I would need help with that one.

The other think i was thinking was maybe I could try to take everyone over by converting them to one of my many religions and then trying to win a diplomatic victory? Think that would work.

I'd appreciate help.

Thanks
 
Don't keep cities unless you're already running a surplus at 60%+. Just remember, if you keep a city you can't change your mind later. But if you raze it, you can still send your own settler there later when your economy can support a new city.

Don't let the war determine when and where you expand. Determine it yourself and go at the pace your economy dictates. Crushing your neighbors is good. Overexpanding isn't. Keep the two separate.
 
Don't keep cities unless you're already running a surplus at 60%+. Just remember, if you keep a city you can't change your mind later. But if you raze it, you can still send your own settler there later when your economy can support a new city.

Don't let the war determine when and where you expand. Determine it yourself and go at the pace your economy dictates. Crushing your neighbors is good. Overexpanding isn't. Keep the two separate.

Best Advice so far.

Unless you feel like rolling back to an earlier autosave. I'd first consolidate your army and bring them to the cities you value most.
Second, to fix your econ I'd think about cottage spamming a few cites and switching to free speech and emancipation (I just assume you have them due to you having Liberalism). This will grow your cottages and increase your yield from them. Think about moving state property down the line (I can only guess you have a glut of cities that are eating your gold per turn).

And again I'll mention city specialization again, I'm just assuming you haven't read the articles on it. But if you have, not to put you down...I can pretty much guarantee that on warlords difficulty if you were implementing it correctly you would never have an economic problem.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/city_specialization.php
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/specialization.php
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/gettingthemost.php
 
actually i did specialize my cities, and i have a couple good production cities, a great person farm (it was an accident lol) and a couple commercial cities.
 
Back
Top Bottom