Civ 4 BTS is unbalanced/illogical, and no fun-for how many?

[JammerUno]

My advice;

stop crying like a baby and man up

 

[tempuraki]

the problem is not with being a builder, but rather with being stuck with a builder mentality. i know if i start building and building, sometimes I forget to get army. AI will attack if your army is too small, so you need to take a break from building the aquaducts and the colliseums and make troops.

 

[Xiao Xiong]

Standard advice is to have one city that does almost nothing but crank out units. During wartime you switch over many cities to that task, but if you don't crank out units during peacetime you won't be able to put together an army fast enough when you need it. Almost nothing because obviously it will be forced to build from time to time, and it's necessary to build forge/factory/HE in your unit pump. When your unit pump is building a forge you might switch another city to unit production until it's available again..

 

[Deathstar]

It seems to me that even as a builder you can never win unless you take other civs cities to some extent.

That's not true at all

 

[TheWilltoAct]

One of my weaknesses is I rarely attack anyone, except barb cities. It seems to me that even as a builder you can never win unless you take other civs cities to some extent.

My playing tendencies are similar.

the problem is not with being a builder, but rather with being stuck with a builder mentality. i know if i start building and building, sometimes I forget to get army. AI will attack if your army is too small, so you need to take a break from building the aquaducts and the colliseums and make troops.

You're exactly right about this, imo Civ 4 has far too many buildings to build and it makes it quite a challenge to sort out which ones you actually need. Really only a small subset of those buildings are truly vital to a city's success.
Xiao Xiong hinted at city specialization; indeed, proper planning of who does what will go a long way towards improving your game. Next time you want to place a building, think carefully whether the benefit is worth your cost.

I dislike building Colosseums for example as I don't feel that 1 is worth 80 . Also Wonders are great fun to build, but they come at a tremendous production cost. Once I see that I can build in wonder in <10 turns I usually go for it, even though those could have been used to expand my empire (settlers) or to strengthen my military.

Aside: I don't use slavery like I should, I could see whipping a colosseum being beneficial.

 

[Ghpstage]

One of my weaknesses is I rarely attack anyone, except barb cities. It seems to me that even as a builder you can never win unless you take other civs cities to some extent.

A recent example game was played by TheMeInTeam where he won on Immortal difficulty, with only 3 cities . Link to thread

On the opposite end of the scale in this thread the same poster manages to get 12 cities by 25AD without striking, and on Monarch difficulty where the maintenance is considrably higher than noble.

Looking at your save....
If your going to use Pacifism without a state religion after building the Shwedegon Paya instead of using Free Religion which would have probably prevented Willem from ever attacking you are asking for trouble.

But with 4 religions I think its still reasonable to get a Cultural victory without too much difficulty.

 

[Carver]

Not playing a Mod and builder, not warmonger. I would have built a slighlty larger army had I realised this idiot would suddenly become a crazed maniac and behave like Monty.
.

This is your key problem. I have the heart of a builder but I've acquired the brain of a warmonger. As Tempuraki suggested, it sounds like you need to build larger armies and that you need to go on offense a bit more.

You have to take preemptive action and attack your rivals in order to survive. I'll start an early war just to take a worker and do some light pillaging.

 

[Civahaulic]

I've been gaming since I could crawl: like 30 years!

and I think Civ 4 is one of, if not the best, game I have ever played.

 

[peapd]

"the first step to knowledge is the recognition of one's ignorance"
-Socrates

...and I bet he would have been a pretty good Civ4 player.

I've held the opinion for a while now that the only thing required to win with some regularity at the Monarch level is a very clear and accurate understanding of all of the game's mechanics/rules/etc... This was the case for me.

 

[mariogreymist]

People who have read the articles and tutorials here and are still not walking all over the low levels (up to prince) are probably ego-bound. That is to say: they have read the advice, but are still convinced they don't need to change what it is they have been doing, simply because doing so (and succeeding) would be evidence that their own ideas weren't the best ideas.

 

[Inso]

and I think Civ 4 is one of, if not the best, game I have ever played.

Indeed, few games have captivated me as much as this one. Its precisely the complexity and level of depth to it along with the insane attention to detail required at higher levels that makes the game so appealing. The game mechanics are very well thought out I think, the developers deserve a lot of credit for that even if the AI could be better.

To the OP: The game has a steep learning curve, so drop the difficulty down and look at the guides on here to get an idea how to play it more effectively. And stop bashing this great game.

 

[Tony.Uk]

Well I tried the warrior rush which I read from the link with 6 units on a small continents map and took out Wahington at the start and this makes a significant difference. Playing against 4 A1's now I have the whole continent to myself as Kublai Khan. No time to build barracks at start. Never done this before, but note on normal map size I tried it twice and it failed because the A1 on both occasions was too far away and built on a hill. Wahington was not on a hill. Anyway I am carrying on with this game to see if I can get a win, and whether I have to carry out a naval invasion of the other continent at some point.

One thing I find that happens often is lack of copper, whick makes an early rush out of the question, the I go for for IW but I should focus on building a stack of Swords, and use the same technique a above. Looks like I have to be more agressive in the early stages which often I am not. Whenever I try to avoid war I end up having a hard time by middle ages.

 

[CornPlanter]

Now we are talking. Boldly stating that the game is unwinnable above Warlord level - in a forum where most of the players consider Emperor easy - will not get you far. On the other hand, trying and asking for help will, because it's the most friendly gaming community I've ever seen in my life.

Looks like I have to be more agressive in the early stages which often I am not.

It's a sound strategy but make no mistake it's not the only one and it's not always the best and not always the easiest. You mentioned that sometimes AI is too far for you for rush. Well in that case peacefully expanding all over the place would work. If the said AIs are no aggressive, so much the better.

What is really important is focus on your goal. If you decide something, focus on it. If you decide to rush, focus only on rushing. If you decide to REX, focus on REXing. Means building only things you really need for that particular short term goal. It's way better to come up with worse goal and focus on it, than to come up with very good goal and not to focus on it.

 

[Tony.Uk]

REXing, I understand is to avoided from what I read, Often I find I am down to 10% research and stuck there for ages. Does that mean I should build fewer cities at the start? I always feel if I do not grab them quickly the A1 will. Or does REX refer to not growing those cities you have too fast. If I cannot warrior rush then the only alternative seems to get those settlers out as soon as possible - is this correct. I notice the A1 tends to expand from out to in, meaning he will get as close to me as possible in order to block then build back towards his capital. Problem with this is I find that building further way costs more maintenance. Or is it best to build outwards from capital say no more than 4 tiles from each city?

 

[Dr.Null]

What is really important is focus on your goal. If you decide something, focus on it. If you decide to rush, focus only on rushing. If you decide to REX, focus on REXing. Means building only things you really need for that particular short term goal. It's way better to come up with worse goal and focus on it, than to come up with very good goal and not to focus on it.

Yep yep yep.
DFA: Don't Fiddle Around.
Rome isn't going to burn itself, you know.

Regarding tech stagnation after rapid expansion (including rapid conquest): yeah, you need to be able to manage that. Cottages can eventually pay for a huge empire, so if you want to REX early, consider getting Pottery very early.

Also: Writing. Those two Scientist specialists bulbing away in each of my core cities... very nice while waiting for a patch of cottages to mature, and a reliable source of Great Scientists, which are often my first Great People.

 

[r_rolo1]

REXing, I understand is to avoided from what I read, Often I find I am down to 10% research and stuck there for ages. Does that mean I should build fewer cities at the start? I always feel if I do not grab them quickly the A1 will. Or does REX refer to not growing those cities you have too fast. If I cannot warrior rush then the only alternative seems to get those settlers out as soon as possible - is this correct. I notice the A1 tends to expand from out to in, meaning he will get as close to me as possible in order to block then build back towards his capital. Problem with this is I find that building further way costs more maintenance. Or is it best to build outwards from capital say no more than 4 tiles from each city?

First a small reminder: what matters is the research you get, not the slider. I know this is a old saying in here, but I prefer 20% of 100 than 100% of 10. This does not mean that you should go and drop cities everywhere as soon as you can, but that you should get as much cities as the the ones you can sustain minimally in peaceful terms.... OTOH settlers are not exactly cheap and they eat the food you need to grow as well, so going all settlers will not serve you well . Best thing to do is to look for the better spots in a 10 tile radius from your cap and think on settling in that area... the rest may wait.

About the AI putting cities... well, the AI was made to be land hungry. That doesn't mean that you should be too Like I said before , settlers aren't cheap and land improving takes time as well ( and those workers have also to be made ), so the AI is basically putting itself in a whole for a big while when it starts expanding like phungus...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Like a humongous fungus among us.

 

[Nkat]

One of my weaknesses is I rarely attack anyone, except barb cities. It seems to me that even as a builder you can never win unless you take other civs cities to some extent.

Hey dude, sorry you are not enjoying yourself. Keep going and study up on some strats. In regards to quoted statement above, I use to be the same. In my current game I have taken out Peter with an early rush and thus doubled my land. The money I got from capturing ALL his cities is funding my deficit research and maintenance fees. By the time I get Currency and some of my cottages mature I should be breaking even. I would suggest a war. You might have to get a few of the early buildings in, build barracks and then start spamming your war units. I have noticed that with all the trouble it is to amass a large force, it pays off in the end with more land, more cities, more money, etc. Try it out. Good luck.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Indeed, few games have captivated me as much as this one. Its precisely the complexity and level of depth to it along with the insane attention to detail required at higher levels that makes the game so appealing. The game mechanics are very well thought out I think, the developers deserve a lot of credit for that even if the AI could be better.

I couldn't agree more, 'captivating' is a great way to describe it. I almost find it more engaging to learn about the games myriad features than to play the game sometimes!

Like a humongous fungus among us.

 

[Olfart]

Quote from mariogreymist: "People who have read the articles and tutorials here and are still not walking all over the low levels (up to prince) are probably ego-bound. That is to say: they have read the advice, but are still convinced they don't need to change what it is they have been doing, simply because doing so (and succeeding) would be evidence that their own ideas weren't the best ideas."

I'm one of those who has never consistently dominated at Noble or Prince (although I win more than I lose at Noble). My problem isn't being ego-bound, it's the game itself. I generally try to apply lessons learned from posts and tips, but each game is unique and requires a strategy that matches the game. By 1AD, I frequently find that I should have taken an entirely different approach (hindsight is usually 20-20). But that's what makes this such a good game. I have concluded that I will never be successful at the higher levels, but that doesn't diminish my enjoyment in the least.

My advice to the OP: If you can't find a level that works for you, you should consider a different game.