Beginner questions..

[Inso]

I don't agree with this. On Immortal, there's a lot of times when you don't want to be building libraries because you have to be building units to rush. And settlers to not get blocked. At some point, I agree, libraries and workers have to be put up. But I don't agree with the orthodox position: get them out FIRST. I think they're more important things to produce FIRST.

So you are not agreeing with the consensus that has been reached on the civ IV strategy and tips forum after many years of heavy play and analysis of the game. Interesting. In most situations early on you want to produce workers and settlers before writing and once writing is in whip a few libraries to get that science/GPP going which really helps at this stage of the game. Of course if rushing a close neighbour than build only units first and then once the rush is complete these things can be focused on.

When someone is new to the game what they want to hear is general, fundamental concepts which they can work with to better their understanding of the game. The importance of building lots of workers in the early stage of the game in order to improve all the land as quickly as possible is one. Another is getting libraries very fast to help with early research via the running of scientists.

No one is saying that every single game should go like this, there are of course situations where it is better to forgo these things but they are in the minority. Regardless, anyone trying to learn Civ IV would do very well heeding this advice.

 

[MCan]

Hey. I play on noble. I dont think Im any good yet, but I can get cultural victories on marathon. I usually get alot of wonders. Maybe its the low difficulty I play on, as Ive read that is very hard to build wonders. I think its because I dont use slavery, and often Oracle metal casting for the forges. I havent played multiplayer, but I could just have bigger more productive cities to build wonders. No idea if this helps, but hope it does!

Sorry I play on Epic! But on that note here goes nothing!

 

[MarigoldRan]

So you are not agreeing with the consensus that has been reached on the civ IV strategy and tips forum after many years of heavy play and analysis of the game. Interesting. In most situations early on you want to produce workers and settlers before writing and once writing is in whip a few libraries to get that science/GPP going which really helps at this stage of the game. Of course if rushing a close neighbour than build only units first and then once the rush is complete these things can be focused on.

When someone is new to the game what they want to hear is general, fundamental concepts which they can work with to better their understanding of the game. The importance of building lots of workers in the early stage of the game in order to improve all the land as quickly as possible is one. Another is getting libraries very fast to help with early research via the running of scientists.

No one is saying that every single game should go like this, there are of course situations where it is better to forgo these things but they are in the minority. Regardless, anyone trying to learn Civ IV would do very well heeding this advice.

In most situations at higher levels you want to rush the opponent. Then build the workers and settlers quickly.

Anyone wishing to learn Civ IV first should learn the military aspects first, than worry about the economics. As I see it, learning how to rush is a lot easier.

EDIT: At higher levels, the reason why the number of workers can be low is because you don't have a lot of land you need to improve. When your happy cap is five or six, each city can be improved only so much. The rest is a waste.

 

[MarigoldRan]

On IMM it is easier to do the old lib thing, the AIs will almost never be able to stay close if you have the correct bulb strategies.

No, cos you are playing Epic.

Standard for a HA or similiar rush is more like ~4 workers and 1 library.
You build the library before you can even build the HAs.

The advice is for new players, and has nothing to do with early rushes.

Just to take the wind out of your nonsene again, and like above poster iam not sure why i still bother

There is no such thing as standard. Each game is different and you play according to the situation.

 

[TeraHammer]

The most important thing you can do in my opinion is asking yourself; why am I doing this? Be in control. Of the production is in your cities, of your units, of your workers (!)- And know what you want to achieve with them. That is the way to get better in civ4.

But the AI is a babbling idiot! This is why it works! At higher levels, the only way you can win is to take advantage of their babbling idiocy.

That is what I despise about singleplayer. It gets a game of trickery vs the booned up AI. Once you can beat noble, I recommand you try multiplayer.

 

[vranasm]

If he would at least advice Horse Archer rushes instead of this nonsense
They are the most common thing to break out early on Deity, and something new players almost never try.
I found that on Immortal i could always catch an AI with it's panties down with HAs, no matter how bad the map is and if i had horsies ofc.

With them you can learn the most important basics..like getting up a library fast (!!! Marigold ) for 2 scientists research + maths bulb + chopping/whipping snowball to create 10 HAs in 5 turns with just 3 cities, and take over the world.This is what new players should be shown f.e., not hoping that a warrior can choke the AI on Imm/Deity.

now that's something I have to try ;-)
I am soo sticked to making first GS academy or settling that the math bulb I overlook, but since watching AZs videos I realize that bulbing math is sometimes needed for getting strong position (like for example in his tendency and love for WE+cats)

 

[vranasm]

There is no such thing as standard. Each game is different and you play according to the situation.

not true probably in the case of HA rushes (except for complete isolation and no horses at all, which you would probably reroll anyway).

If you look into strategy articles, there is article from Vicawoo about HA rushes. And have to say there was an era of forum games (not so long ago), where he came here and in a lot of games (with horses nearby) he demonstrated how to work in HA rush even if people tried more standard approaches.

Almost the same as AZs videos where he (if he has Ivory) dictates the map WE+cats warfare instead of reverse.

So in this sense I consider HA rush and WE+cats warfare as "standard" achievable everytime (except for no horse/ivory and isolation).
What is not so standard is the way how to get to the needed techs .

and Btw you really should try few games on Normal speed to see the difference (especially the early worker aka "worker first" could you surprise on Normal compared to your "worker steal" always strategy, especially with leaders starting with Hunting)

 

[Xpl]

In most situations at higher levels you want to rush the opponent. Then build the workers and settlers quickly.

Anyone wishing to learn Civ IV first should learn the military aspects first, than worry about the economics. As I see it, learning how to rush is a lot easier.

EDIT: At higher levels, the reason why the number of workers can be low is because you don't have a lot of land you need to improve. When your happy cap is five or six, each city can be improved only so much. The rest is a waste.

Not going to lie, but even my newbie brain can see that this is just gargled rubbish.

Military is not the key. Sure the game is geared more towards militaristic aspects, but it also heavily focuses on other things like culture and economics. And rushing ASAP could well be a bad idea. So instead of spamming out 10 warriors and finding the closest sucker and capturing his 2 pop capital which could well be in excess of 20 tiles away, why don't I wait 70 more turns and get construction? Then I could take a higher pop city with most of the surrounding tiles improved and perhaps even a shrine and a few wonders in there as well. It sounds completely logical does it not?

You can't make armies without workers. End. Workers = improvements = mines = hammers = faster production = more units. Can it be any more clearer?

Sure you can win, but focusing on economy more would mean you would crush your opponent more.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Not going to lie, but even my newbie brain can see that this is just gargled rubbish.

Military is not the key. Sure the game is geared more towards militaristic aspects, but it also heavily focuses on other things like culture and economics. And rushing ASAP could well be a bad idea. So instead of spamming out 10 warriors and finding the closest sucker and capturing his 2 pop capital which could well be in excess of 20 tiles away, why don't I wait 70 more turns and get construction? Then I could take a higher pop city with most of the surrounding tiles improved and perhaps even a shrine and a few wonders in there as well. It sounds completely logical does it not?

You can't make armies without workers. End. Workers = improvements = mines = hammers = faster production = more units. Can it be any more clearer?

Sure you can win, but focusing on economy more would mean you would crush your opponent more.

Not ASAP. But early. During the comp's development phase. I tend to ele-pult around 200 BC or so: earlier if I see a neighbor approaching Feudalism too fast. It's late, but I like getting the Pyramids. Have to remember, though, to turn to Police State if I'm Spiritual.

My worker count is low because I won't be able to use most of the tiles around my cities. Workers = improvements = mines = hammers = faster production = more units IS TRUE ONLY IF YOUR CITIES HAVE THE HAPPY CAP TO MAKE USE OF THE TILES YOU'RE WORKING. DUH!!!! If you're running Slavery, planning to war, and is playing Immortal+, then too many workers=waste. I got a lot of workers in the recent Immortal: Rammeses game, but that's because I captured a bunch from the Barbarians, and there were a lot of happiness resources nearby and I got a religion from G- early.

Heck, on the Pericles game, I just built axes from the capital the entire game, after the initial workboats, barracks and worker (single). No settlers. Wanted to see how it worked, and it worked reasonably well.

Military is key. The econ is secondary. As long as you're not going on strike, and can recover fast enough to tech towards Curraisers, you'll win. The idea is you keep up with techs by forcing your newly conquered suckers to give you their techs. This is why Feudalism and Vassal States are useful.

EDIT: My economic planning mid-game generally consists of cottage-spamming. My GP farms tend to not create GP. I'm always surprised when my GP farms actually WORK. City-Specialization? What's that? After all, if I get all these cottages, I should build marketplaces and libraries there, right?

What? Build settlers? What's a settler? I stop settler production after the first two. Need a wonder? I whip it. Build a galley to defend your workboats? What? I don't understand.

This strategy seems to work fine on Immortal. I just crush everyone militarily (as long as I don't get dog-piled). The computer is much better at economic-planning than I am. That's why I use their nice and productive cities to win. They do the planning and the econ development. I reap the rewards! Easy-as-pie.

 

[vranasm]

@Marigold

AbsoluteZero Elepult's enemy at 500BC on Deity on Normal speed...

My personal best is around 475 BC on Emperor (not sure now if on the Napoleon Emperor game I wasn't a bit quicker)

There is absolutely no reason to delay it in favor of Pyramids.

Cottage spam has too long payout, so if you are behind the econ techs (currency, CoL) you're better off to switch into hammer economy immedietaly.

I would run cottages only in your first 2 cities if the land is there, maybe 3rd, but that is icing on the cake.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Let the COMPUTER focus on economy. You focus on the military (and cottage spam to avoid strike). This way, you can have a big economy and a big military.

 

[MarigoldRan]

@Marigold

AbsoluteZero Elepult's enemy at 500BC on Deity on Normal speed...

My personal best is around 475 BC on Emperor (not sure now if on the Napoleon Emperor game I wasn't a bit quicker)

There is absolutely no reason to delay it in favor of Pyramids.

Cottage spam has too long payout, so if you are behind the econ techs (currency, CoL) you're better off to switch into hammer economy immedietaly.

I would run cottages only in your first 2 cities if the land is there, maybe 3rd, but that is icing on the cake.

Yeah, I could make it tighter. Like, for example remembering that elephants need HBR. But I tend to delay it for the Pyramids for two reasons:

1. Let the comp develop more of their land for you.
2. Pyramids is useful for medieval warfare. EDIT: Also, Representation allows you to tech while in an econ sinkhole.

EDIT: Like, for example, I would Numidian Rush... at 100 BC. The great thing about Numidians is their long expiration date.

 

[Xpl]

@Marigold

Okay granted you can beat the game, and by your claims rather successfully. But you should definitely cease this arrogant and ignorant attitude especially when helping a newer player.

I refuse to believe your overall generic strategy is better unless I see stone cold proof, step by step that it works instead of you just saying "it works and I frickin' own at the process"

Like I said, so you win? Big whoop. But after a collective community has found the overall best strategy, right now you're simply confusing inexperienced players who are open minded and want to learn.


/rant

 

[MarigoldRan]

The overall community has found a good strategy at Normal speed. I admit that at Normal speed, you pretty much have to do things a certain way. However, change the speed and the game changes.

Check out the Immortal: Ramsesses series. Or the Emperor: Hannibal series. Or the Monarch: Alexander series. Saves are provided there.

And no, you don't need Liberalism or Education or Universities to win the majority of the time on Continent-or-Pangea-type maps. Really. Just get the war techs, ele-pult or whatever in the BCs, Currency, CoL, Calendar for happy cap, Banking for your 30% science rate (which is high, by my standards), and then Curraisers/Cavalry.

Heck, you don't even need settlers. Except for the first two. Once you're at three cities, and have horse and ivory, you're on your way to victory!

EDIT: I think you guys are making it too hard for new players. Just get a lot of stuff and kill people. How hard can that be? It works up to Monarch. And Emperor too, most of the time.

EDIT 2: Check out the Diety AW 2. You'd be surprised at what you can get away with by doing nothing except warring. Even when EVERYTHING is stacked against you. The All-War series is perfect for breaking out of the "peace" rut and learning about war.

 

[Xpl]

The overall community has found a good strategy at Normal speed. Change the speed and the game changes.

Check out the Immortal: Ramsesses series. Or the Emperor: Hannibal series. Or the Monarch: Alexander series. Saves are provided there.

And no, you don't need Liberalism or Education or Universities to win the majority of the time on Continent-or-Pangea-type maps. Really. Just get the war techs, ele-pult or whatever in the BCs, Currency, CoL, Calendar for happy cap, Banking for your 20% science rate, and then Curraisers/Cavalry.

Heck, you don't even need settlers. Except for the first two. Once you're at three cities, and have horse and ivory, you're on your way to victory!

I don't need you to point me in the direction of games.

Yes, you don't need liberalism or education to win, but it sure helps a lot. What if Shaka vasalled Mansa Musa and had infantry while you have macemen? The universities could sure help you there.

I never once said that what you do didn't mean you would lose. But for someone trying to learn the game, your advice is frankly bad. 3 cities only? That will only result in terrible losses for a newcomer. If only you would stop being so arrogant and cease trying to push your method like an organized religion things would be more acceptable. But no..

 

[MarigoldRan]

I don't need you to point me in the direction of games.

Yes, you don't need liberalism or education to win, but it sure helps a lot. What if Shaka vasalled Mansa Musa and had infantry while you have macemen? The universities could sure help you there.

I never once said that what you do didn't mean you would lose. But for someone trying to learn the game, your advice is frankly bad. 3 cities only? That will only result in terrible losses for a newcomer. If only you would stop being so arrogant and cease trying to push your method like an organized religion things would be more acceptable. But no..

Well, see, my advice is not frankly bad. YOU think it's "frankly bad" but that's because you're arrogant.

3-cities only. Yes. On Immortal. Any more and econ crashes. Then war. You get your cities through conquest.

EDIT: Ok, so on lower difficulties, get more cities.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

3 cities only? That will only result in terrible losses for a newcomer.

Well yes and no. On Immortal or Deity rushing with 3 cities is pretty normal, and you typically wouldn't do it with more than maybe 4. For a newcomer however, you're right. Below Immortal the AI expands slowly enough that it's generally better to just settle a bunch of land before warring.

Of course this is the problem with arguing with Marigold: you can never tell if he's talking about Noble or Deity, and if you point out how his argument fails with respect to one he'll shift and say it was about the other (and vice-versa.)

 

[MarigoldRan]

Well yes and no. On Immortal or Deity rushing with 3 cities is pretty normal, and you typically wouldn't do it with more than maybe 4. For a newcomer however, you're right. Below Immortal the AI expands slowly enough that it's generally better to just settle a bunch of land before warring.

Of course this is the problem with arguing with Marigold: you can never tell if he's talking about Noble or Deity, and if you point out how his argument fails with respect to one he'll shift and say it was about the other (and vice-versa.)

Fair point. But my major argument is that: IT DEPENDS.

You play according to the situation.

Also, the problem (and yes, I have it too) is that when people argue, they rarely settle the basic assumptions first. Also, when people ask for advice, they rarely state the basic starting situation. If the assumptions aren't stated, then I assume I can assume whatever I want. That's fair, yes?

For example: a lot of times people ask: what should I do at the beginning? And that's a silly question because IT DEPENDS on map size, speed, difficulty, civilization, and starting position. Instead of asking that question, they should ask: what should I do to beat Warlord/Epic? What should I do to beat Monarch/Normal? Etc.. The more specific the question, the more specific and thus the better the advice.

P.S. Quechas are ridiculous on the right map.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Also, when people ask for advice, they rarely state the basic starting situation. If the assumptions aren't stated, then I assume I can assume whatever I want. That's fair, yes?

Only if you're looking for an argument instead of a discussion.
Otherwise, the proper methodology is to pursue clarification first.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Only if you're looking for an argument instead of a discussion.
Otherwise, the proper methodology is to pursue clarification first.

Which is correct. I realize that now. But I might add that the other side never sought clarification either.