Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by wizard73, Dec 2, 2005.
A-ha, thanks. that might come in handy in aforementioned PBEM game to knock some chumps into civics.
sorry for performing an uber-necromancy in this thread. I have a strange idea for this UU...
Since getting iron and horses are common as someone here might have claimed. What if we trade away those resources to the "AI we won't be at war in the meantime" before/during we do a CA rush? Using the same analogy as trading away coal resources for the Shale Plant but this is available earlier. By exploiting aggressive trading strategies, this might give us some considerable economic advantage, which might be useful for unit upgrade/maintenance. (Theoretically, the same rule could be applied to other resourceless UUs like Dogs, Jags, Holkans, or Gallic Warriors to some extent but the lateness of currency as a classical tech makes it unfeasible)
In short, perhaps we could fully exploit the power of the UU not with the absence of the resource but the presence of it.
So what do you guys think?
The computer rarely has enough gold per turn available to make that a serious strategy. Sure a few extra gold/turn from a guy you aren't planning to attack anyway is fine, but it will not be enough to upgrade huge amounts of units.
Half price temples, of which you will build a lot in a traditional culture victory!
you don't have an idea: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/subsidies.php
Well my counter-argument would follow this logic:
-The camel archer is still essentially just a knight (15% WD isn't much of an upgrade vs the base unit).
-Knights are inherently weak on their own due to their location on the tech tree and AI counters during that same era (longbows, pikes, castles, etc).
-Thus knights are really just a nice cog in an engineering army rather than a unit like a horse archer or a cuirassier that can conquer efficiently on their own.
-If you trade away your iron you will no longer be able to build other important units for your engineering army - crossbows, pikes, and possibly even maces.
@pandamancer.Like the idea,and I think with those resources being highly prized you could end up with diplomatic bonuses too,although maybe you would have to gift them.As were talking camel archers,were talking Saladin PRO/SPI,the traits don't help to get you to guilds super quick like PHI or FIN help.
BUT being PRO you can upgrade your longbowmen as stack protectors negating the need for iron.Your camel archers take care of x-bows/maces,your shock longbows would counter the pikes(I think being PRO you can upgrade them to shock/combatII with 2 promotions)As your going to have feudalism anyway Guerilla II longbows may be able to keep up with the knights if there are hills around.
The only thing is walls/castles,your going to need to build up a fair bit of espionage to cause revolts in that relatively early parts of the game-when ive gone knight rushing with saladin on EMP its usually about turn 120/130 before I get guilds.
The placement of knights on the tech tree sadly muscles them out.
While unpopular, later era starts do allow camel archer time to shine, as you have it guaranteed the instant you have the tech, and the AI doesn't have time for castles yet.
I've been poking around with an Arabian Renaissance Start game where the camel archers seem to be doing very nicely on the first war; I'm not sure I'll be able to take the whole world that way (Pangaea) but I'm going to push for a while. Until I get tired of it -- I'm not that fond of warmongering, so this is more or less an experiment rather than a real game.
I have to agree with TMIT on this one. The camel archer unit isn't bad per se, a knight with withdraw... but the problem is Saladin is arguably the weakest leader in the game. The UB is mediocre and his traits...ugh his traits. The only leader I can think of that could compete with Sal for worst in the game is Charlemagne.
Well Spiritual is one of the most powerful traits in the game and although Charlemagne's traits and UU are rubbish his UB is awesome.
Yeah I know a lot of people love spiritual. I don't. There is a lot of path dependency in Civ4 which makes it a lot less powerful than you'd think.
No idea what path dependency is
Spiritual is a great tool in many circumstances, Cultural or Diplo victories is where it really shines of course although it has it's uses in war. It's one of the top 3 traits in my mind - together with Financial and Industrious.
imo, saladin is not strong but the ub and spi trait makes it tolerable.
the ub allows to run 4 specialists early in the game without caste. although by doing so your first gs might screw up
Ratheus is pretty good, but it's not a game changer by any means. You still have to wage a successful early war and get yourself into a winning position before courthouses really matter. Overall i think Charlie is the worst leader in the game due to his horrible traits and starting techs.
Charlie ist the best leader for time victories, noone can top his economy :> . I know, those victories don't matter in this forum.
Interesting, I must try that.
Path dependency - when you choose one path and your actions make it impossible or difficult to choose another path.
Civ 4 has a lot of this whereas Civ 3 did not. In Civ 3 I liked the spiritual trait, you'd switch to monarchy and go to war, and as soon as you were done you'd switch to republic, and there was no drawback.
In Civ 4 if you cottage spam everything, you need US/FS to make use of your tiles, you don't have the luxury of switching to REP. If you want to go to war and switch to PS you lose tons of production. Similarly, if you settled tons of GP and are running Rep, again you can't switch out of Rep without losing tons of research; and in that case you're running lots of specialists you need to stay in caste, you probably need to be in enviro and free religion as well...
The only thing I find spiritual useful for is being able to whip, draft, and rushbuy without going into anarchy. That is the ONLY use I see from the trait. Usually I'd rather have something else.
Every Civic has its value, you don't "need" any in specific (except maybe Buro) . In my Spaceraces, I i. e. use REP for the whole time, no way to think about rushbuying anything when research is what matters.
I've also played at least one extremely good Conquest game, where I chose REP over Police State because I would have never reached Communism without it.
The biggest use of SPI comes from being able to adapt to the opponents of the map. Switch to their Religion, their favourite Civic, and get instant +2 on diplomatic relations. Often that's just enough to get a CIV to friendly.
I played a Large / Quick / Conquest game like that once. Was a classical start and I still got 1000 AD Cavalries. On normal speed and with an ancient start, I once reached Cavalries even 300y earlier on a Boreal map.
Don't forget, the greatest enhancement of teching speed comes through tech-trading with AIs, and often, it's easier and faster to tech to simply tech further, than going to war with medieval or earlier units.
What I mean is - compare the spiritual train in civ 4 to civ 3. In civ 3, roads produced commerce no matter what civics you were using. Everything worked fine and as intended under any form of government, so there was no drawback to switching back and forth except for 1 inherent difference - authoritarian govts gave you no war weariness and less commerce, representative governments gave you more commerce but war weariness.
In civ 4, the problem is that you make decisions early on in the game that establish a path and you become dependent on them. If you've settled tons of specialists in a super research city, for example, you don't really have the luxury to leave Rep as your science rate will just absolutely plummet, likewise if you have spammed cottages everywhere that have matured into towns, you can't leave US. If you've spammed watermills/workshops you can't leave SP, if you've spammed factories and coal plants you can't leave enviro.
Add to all this the fact that you can simply run a golden age for anarchy free switches, and I say the spiritual trait is trash. I honestly don't know which is worse - spiritual, or protective.
Separate names with a comma.