Jerrymander
Epistemologist
I'm good at the game. I play on Prince.
Love it.
Love it.
Anyone Else Really Bad as Civ IV But Still Love It
- Thread starter isau
- Start date
sav
King
I played on Warlord when I first got Bts (I got the whole thing, complete, from teh start) and won within a couple of attempts.
On Noble, I've won perhaps 3 times in 30 attempts? If not more... I'm not a hardcore micro-manager though, I play for fun, and I suppose if there are about 10 civs in each game, and I'm winning 10% of the time, then this is the level I should be playing at.
I think people expect to win 50% of the time, which I'd only expect if I had a single opponent.
On Noble, I've won perhaps 3 times in 30 attempts? If not more... I'm not a hardcore micro-manager though, I play for fun, and I suppose if there are about 10 civs in each game, and I'm winning 10% of the time, then this is the level I should be playing at.
I think people expect to win 50% of the time, which I'd only expect if I had a single opponent.
I think one of my biggest is problems is lack of concentration.
I will start a game thinking I will try to win by Domination, and then halfway through start leaning towards a diplomatic or cultural strategy.
To the people on this forum that DON'T suck: Do you decide what kind of victory you are going for at the onset of a game, or later on--and if later on, how?
I will start a game thinking I will try to win by Domination, and then halfway through start leaning towards a diplomatic or cultural strategy.
To the people on this forum that DON'T suck: Do you decide what kind of victory you are going for at the onset of a game, or later on--and if later on, how?
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
I usually decide in advance. But sometimes I pull one off that I didn't intend on. Like one game, I was playing as Montezuma/Aztec and was going for a Tiny Conquest victory. But both of my neighbors were protective and spamming archers, so I decided that my 5 strength Jaguars were not gonna be enough. Around 500 BC I decided to try for a culture victory, finally squeezing it out in 1964 AD. One of the other AIs was very close to a Domination victory, too.
Regardless, I generally decide what victory condition beforehand, and try to not change it.
MasterofDisasta
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 355
I've been playing civilization for a long time. First one I got was Civ 2 (but i got it for on a $9.99 discount bin so it was pretty old). I've always been pretty bad (I only won 1 Civ 2 game and I can count my Civ 3 victories on one hand.) 
But for some reason I've been a lot better at Civ 4. I was playing about 50:50 win loss ratio on noble games but a few weeks ago I started reading strategy articles here and now I'm past noble trying to play Prince. 
I do find that the great thing about Civ is that I have almost as much fun when I lose as when I win otherwise I wouldn't have kept playing so long. Of course winning is just a bit more fun! 
But for some reason I've been a lot better at Civ 4. I was playing about 50:50 win loss ratio on noble games but a few weeks ago I started reading strategy articles here and now I'm past noble trying to play Prince. I do find that the great thing about Civ is that I have almost as much fun when I lose as when I win otherwise I wouldn't have kept playing so long. Of course winning is just a bit more fun! I like big, slow, ponderous games. I play large map, normal speed, etc.
I am currently #2 and just finished off #3 to own almost 1/4 of the globe.
I can never seem to make a victory type work for me and my victories end up being tech. This time, #1 is way ahead of me tech-wise, so I'm thinking I may need to transport all of my excess tanks & artillery across the water and eat all his coastal cities...
This is my 1st real attempt at Noble (I've been eaten twice by barbarian archers so early in the game I didn't have barracks or anything above a warrior - random invasion event) and twice I just quit because it was SO boring and I didn't have any decent terrain (no horses or copper on the entire continent).
We'll see how it comes out.
I am currently #2 and just finished off #3 to own almost 1/4 of the globe.
I can never seem to make a victory type work for me and my victories end up being tech. This time, #1 is way ahead of me tech-wise, so I'm thinking I may need to transport all of my excess tanks & artillery across the water and eat all his coastal cities...
This is my 1st real attempt at Noble (I've been eaten twice by barbarian archers so early in the game I didn't have barracks or anything above a warrior - random invasion event) and twice I just quit because it was SO boring and I didn't have any decent terrain (no horses or copper on the entire continent).
We'll see how it comes out.
Fiz
Chieftain
I wonder, among those who play "well", how much they define in their favor ahead of time. As I mentioned earlier, I tend to run everything random except:
- I play Noble
- World size (at least large)
- Players (at least 8)
- I don't allow technology brokering
- You can sail over the poles (Toroidal)
- I try various win conditions
- I play Noble
- World size (at least large)
- Players (at least 8)
- I don't allow technology brokering
- You can sail over the poles (Toroidal)
- I try various win conditions
TyranusBonehead
Bound & Determined
Yes, I'm pretty bad at Civ4 and I do agree that BTS made it worse. I go through periods where I try and try, and sometimes I'll win, but more often than not I'll lose, sometimes just by a tiny bit. My nick is TyranusBonehead for a reason btw
Answers. 1. Yes I have whipping and chopping down 2. Sometimes if it is more fun 3. Wonders are fun. I like to play a balance. 4. I don't usually over-expand.
I play on Prince and I have fun doing it. Play the game to have fun. Experiment and find a playstyle that you like. The amount of time you play has a lot to do with the level you play at. I see no reason to play at higher difficulties just because someone said this or that. It's not fun and it will becoming wearing.
It's a game. Have fun with it.
Mon Mauler
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 274
I would say that I'm OK.
When I first got Civ IV I played the first 2 or 3 games on Warlord. Then I switched to Noble and played on that for a while before moving up to Prince. My gameplay is now exclusively on Prince, and I have absolutely zero desire to increase or decrease the difficulty level. I would say that I win somewhere in the range of 80% of my games.
Like others have said, Civ is so customizable, even in the general settings that can be changed, that one of the most important aspects of this game is knowing what you will enjoy and choosing the settings that will make that game happen.
The thing I've found is that to really succeed in Civ you need to be decisive, take risks and do everything to the extreme. For example, if you wish to warmonger, then you need to have a very legitimate need to have a building before sacrificing hammers on construction instead of military units. The opposite is true in regards to Culture wins. Taking the middle road (compromising) is generally punished by the computer.
This is the main reason I prefer to play on Prince. I hate to micromanage, and I would characterize my playstyle as aggressive warmonger-builder. I like to win, but I like a good fight. And I love to have a strong military, but I am able to immerse myself in the game more if I also have the ability to build some of the wonders and buildings I think my people would like were my empire to be real. I play for fun and it requires too much concentration and micromanagement for me to compete at higher difficulty levels.
Only a few small changes have allowed me to move up in levels. The biggest and most important change I've made is to be decisive in what I plan to do at the outset of the game, and to dedicate myself to this goal throughout. For example, I usually have random leaders, so as soon as I see my leader and my immediate surroundings, I try to generally think of what victory I would like to pursue. In my experience, I have the next couple dozen turns to solidify my victory choice before it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve any victory.
Unlike the really good players, though, I don't fully sell out for my chosen victory condition or micromanage to make it happen faster; rather, I try to play with that general victory in mind. The more discerning I am with my choices, especially in the early game, the better I do. The wide majority of my losses come in games where I am forced to alter my Grand Strategy any time after the first 50 turns.
Sometimes I am utterly terrible at this game, and sometimes I think I display flashes of brilliance. In any case, I agree with the other posters - It's a game, have fun with it. I do, and that's why I've played Civ so long.
When I first got Civ IV I played the first 2 or 3 games on Warlord. Then I switched to Noble and played on that for a while before moving up to Prince. My gameplay is now exclusively on Prince, and I have absolutely zero desire to increase or decrease the difficulty level. I would say that I win somewhere in the range of 80% of my games.
Like others have said, Civ is so customizable, even in the general settings that can be changed, that one of the most important aspects of this game is knowing what you will enjoy and choosing the settings that will make that game happen.
The thing I've found is that to really succeed in Civ you need to be decisive, take risks and do everything to the extreme. For example, if you wish to warmonger, then you need to have a very legitimate need to have a building before sacrificing hammers on construction instead of military units. The opposite is true in regards to Culture wins. Taking the middle road (compromising) is generally punished by the computer.
This is the main reason I prefer to play on Prince. I hate to micromanage, and I would characterize my playstyle as aggressive warmonger-builder. I like to win, but I like a good fight. And I love to have a strong military, but I am able to immerse myself in the game more if I also have the ability to build some of the wonders and buildings I think my people would like were my empire to be real. I play for fun and it requires too much concentration and micromanagement for me to compete at higher difficulty levels.
Only a few small changes have allowed me to move up in levels. The biggest and most important change I've made is to be decisive in what I plan to do at the outset of the game, and to dedicate myself to this goal throughout. For example, I usually have random leaders, so as soon as I see my leader and my immediate surroundings, I try to generally think of what victory I would like to pursue. In my experience, I have the next couple dozen turns to solidify my victory choice before it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve any victory.
Unlike the really good players, though, I don't fully sell out for my chosen victory condition or micromanage to make it happen faster; rather, I try to play with that general victory in mind. The more discerning I am with my choices, especially in the early game, the better I do. The wide majority of my losses come in games where I am forced to alter my Grand Strategy any time after the first 50 turns.
Sometimes I am utterly terrible at this game, and sometimes I think I display flashes of brilliance. In any case, I agree with the other posters - It's a game, have fun with it. I do, and that's why I've played Civ so long.
I fall into this category. I'm still new to the game itself. When I load into 4000BC I can hear the faint echo of laughter from around the world as my people groan in anticipation of an almost assured painful demise.
Goodness knows I try to win but I typically don't. That's ok though I really enjoy the game and the ability to try and create an empire. If I get down about losing I just think back on the real world and how many leaders have tried and failed to create a long lasting empire. Some were sucessful but only for a time, others never had a chance. I figure I'm in pretty good company.
Supr49er
2011 Thunderfall Cup
I fall into this category. I'm still new to the game itself. When I load into 4000BC I can hear the faint echo of laughter from around the world as my people groan in anticipation of an almost assured painful demise.
Goodness knows I try to win but I typically don't. That's ok though I really enjoy the game and the ability to try and create an empire. If I get down about losing I just think back on the real world and how many leaders have tried and failed to create a long lasting empire. Some were sucessful but only for a time, others never had a chance. I figure I'm in pretty good company.
Exactly what matters.
Welcome to the Forums zalym.
Similar threads
