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

[Sportyatuncw06]

This is a very interesting thread and I have lots of points I would like to make after. This game is indeed more diverse and difficult than the previous versions of Civ. It is also more difficult, but the great thing about it is there are many paths to victory. Old versions of civ were simple. Build settlers as fast as possible and as much military as possible and go kill everyone. It is very possible to win the game now without a war. I am not a great CIV player but my last game was a cultural win on noble in the early 1900's. I used to have difficulty winning cultural games but picked up many tips from this website and meshed them with my style of play to find techniques that worked for me. I never went to war in this game and built almost every building possible in every city (lots of post on here recomend not going crazy with buildings) but this particular game it worked for me. The best advice I can give is don't give up, there will be an AH HAAAA!!! moment when something clicks and you have a breakthrough and you will never look back. I can win on monarch but went back to noble to work on weaknesses because I want to win and hate losing games I put 6 or 8 hours into. I am developing my game, reading threads on this site and looking to step up in level again very soon and hopefully be much more dominate.
One point I would say is a lot of the advice on here is very general and I try to incorporate lots of different strategies. Pick one and give it a try. Use something else in the next game. Try a different leader or go for a different way of winning. Find something you have some success with then build around that. Ask questions. Everyone on here is very willing to help and there is very little bad advice here, just situations that are better suited to certain method than others.

 

[squadbroken]

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.

The problem you detailed is really just a question of experience. The more you play, the better you will get at identifying the best strategy to follow.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The very highest difficulties weren't designed to be fair. Still, pretty much the entire OP has been routinely proven false.

You make false claims about maintenance, argue that the game should be something it actually resembles more than any game in the series to date, and claim that small empires can't win.

None of that is true. Counter evidence has been posted many times over in the years you've been a member of this forum. People regularly win with OCC on most difficulties, let alone find ways to easily pay for far more than 6 cities on every difficulty.

It's one thing to accept being a casual player and playing the game for fun. But let's not pretend: that's exactly what you're doing. Rather than an attack on some of the specific flaws in this game, what you are really saying in the OP is "I am bad at this game, and am not willing to adapt even remotely to beat it at a medium level, so it is a bad game". No more, no less. The game is not to blame, not in this sense.

If you want to call out factual problems, like laggy gamespy, dysfunctional hotkeys, or coding that causes the game to use computing resources inefficiently, that would actually make sense. If you could come up with a viable *reason* expansion limitations (or lack thereof) hamper game balance, the OP would be readable. But you can't, because you're not even aware enough of the features that make 15 cities by 1 AD affordable on noble, let alone 6, or the fact that 3 cities alone can easily win culture on immortal if you can manage the diplo.

Well I'll stop now, since the title had something to do with game balance while the OP ignored that aside from the mere claim that it isn't.

 

[Tony.Uk]

The very highest difficulties weren't designed to be fair. Still, pretty much the entire OP has been routinely proven false.

You make false claims about maintenance, argue that the game should be something it actually resembles more than any game in the series to date, and claim that small empires can't win.

None of that is true. Counter evidence has been posted many times over in the years you've been a member of this forum. People regularly win with OCC on most difficulties, let alone find ways to easily pay for far more than 6 cities on every difficulty.

It's one thing to accept being a casual player and playing the game for fun. But let's not pretend: that's exactly what you're doing. Rather than an attack on some of the specific flaws in this game, what you are really saying in the OP is "I am bad at this game, and am not willing to adapt even remotely to beat it at a medium level, so it is a bad game". No more, no less. The game is not to blame, not in this sense.

If you want to call out factual problems, like laggy gamespy, dysfunctional hotkeys, or coding that causes the game to use computing resources inefficiently, that would actually make sense. If you could come up with a viable *reason* expansion limitations (or lack thereof) hamper game balance, the OP would be readable. But you can't, because you're not even aware enough of the features that make 15 cities by 1 AD affordable on noble, let alone 6, or the fact that 3 cities alone can easily win culture on immortal if you can manage the diplo.

Well I'll stop now, since the title had something to do with game balance while the OP ignored that aside from the mere claim that it isn't.

I am not familiar with some of the abbreviations used in the forum, and sometimes miss the point of the thread.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I only see 2 abbreviations in TMIT's post.

OP = opening post (or original poster).

OCC = one city challenge

 

[Etheric]

I am not familiar with some of the abbreviations used in the forum, and sometimes miss the point of the thread.

There is a nice list at the civ 4 wiki

http://civ4.wikia.com/wiki/Acronyms

With regards to the OP, not got much to say. Noble is where you actually have to know what you are doing a bit. Which AIs will attack you at pleased, how much of army to build, what to emphasise. For me that shows that the AI is at least decent for a computer game.

 

[mariogreymist]

So a priest a rabbi and a guy walk into a bar. The guy then signs onto CFC, and calls civ a horrible game, prompting 3 pages of responses. I was really expecting a punchline by now, since this is so obviously a joke.

 

[Olfart]

I've been playing for two years now, and usually hold my own at Noble and won a few at Prince. I've managed domination/conquest victories by around 1600, so I don't feel too bad. I've never really played a computer game until this one, so I don't have a good frame of reference. My point is that the nature of the game requires one to think carefully through each game rather than following a fixed strategy. I'm not a dedicated player by any means, but I've found it to be an entertaining and challenging diversion since I retired (I'm probably one of the older players).

Note to TMIT: I marvel at your patience in answering neophyte questions (including many of my own). You've been a huge help to players willing to listen and learn. Thanx.

 

[Sian]

now thats actually fairly rare ... seeing TMIT going full frontal blowup ... not that the reasoning behind it aren't valid

 

[eireksten]

or the fact that 3 cities alone can easily win culture on immortal if you can manage the diplo.

Hehe Easily? I'm not sure I feel that diplo is the only thing that's keeping me from winning culture on immortal with only 3 cities

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hehe Easily? I'm not sure I feel that diplo is the only thing that's keeping me from winning culture on immortal with only 3 cities

If you *know* you won't see war, wonderspam/sistine (try to distribute wonders between 2 cities) and bomb up the 3rd with works.

Alternatively, screw wonders. Just get like 2 religions and use cottages in the 2 cities, running caste/pacifism and using the 3rd city (needs to be food rich) to run artists and bomb them there. Any extra can speed up the first 2.

Basically FS + cathedral = 150% culture, so if you can get base culture in your cities > 120 or so (pretty easy with cottages, a wonder or two, and some religious buildings) you can get over 300 culture/turn. You win in ~166 turns that way, but usually more like 150 because you were getting some culture before you put the slider up.

You get 2-3 scientists to bulb for lib, then the rest is all artists. If you don't go wonder heavy it's very easy to control to get artists (even national epic allows artist points).

Hermitage in #1 or #2 city depends on how many GAs you get. Usually with this garbage it's #2.

You will generally win early-mid 1800's this way, faster than almost any immortal AI on a standard map. However, since you're skimping on military completely, one DoW and you're dead. If you have a reasonable neighbor though it will probably be a strong AI since you underexpanded, so you might be able to DP leech it.

 

[yanner39]

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.

This summarizes my feelings as well. I certainly try and apply the strategies and tips I get from these boards as well as the walkthroughs, etc...You're right - any game you reload is so different that you just need to find a balance. After while, I feel that there is just so much the info on these boards can do. The key is playing more games (which due to time constraints, I struggle to get more games in).

Recently, I got some good advices on early rushes. I still need to work at it, but I'm so much better I was a few weeks ago. Key: Tips I learned from mariogreymist and Learnergamer as well as practice.

Also, I think it's about breaking old bad habits that were picked up, say on Noble. I am trying to make the jump from Noble to Monarch and the learning curve seems a little steep. But that's fine because, along with the advice I get here, and what I learn from experience, I am getting better. I fine I am getting better player a high level and than if I just breeze through the tech tree.

The game's fine.

 

[Tony.Uk]

If you *know* you won't see war, wonderspam/sistine (try to distribute wonders between 2 cities) and bomb up the 3rd with works.

Alternatively, screw wonders. Just get like 2 religions and use cottages in the 2 cities, running caste/pacifism and using the 3rd city (needs to be food rich) to run artists and bomb them there. Any extra can speed up the first 2.

Basically FS + cathedral = 150% culture, so if you can get base culture in your cities > 120 or so (pretty easy with cottages, a wonder or two, and some religious buildings) you can get over 300 culture/turn. You win in ~166 turns that way, but usually more like 150 because you were getting some culture before you put the slider up.

You get 2-3 scientists to bulb for lib, then the rest is all artists. If you don't go wonder heavy it's very easy to control to get artists (even national epic allows artist points).

Hermitage in #1 or #2 city depends on how many GAs you get. Usually with this garbage it's #2.

You will generally win early-mid 1800's this way, faster than almost any immortal AI on a standard map. However, since you're skimping on military completely, one DoW and you're dead. If you have a reasonable neighbor though it will probably be a strong AI since you underexpanded, so you might be able to DP leech it.

Small continents map as Kublai Khan. Once I knocked out Washington on my continent, the rest was relatively straightforward. never used an early warrior rush before - 6 units. Washington was not on a hill and as an aggressive leader this was acheivable. Maybe this cannot be done as a non aggressive leader, not sure, or where the A1 is too far away. Being agressive at the start certainly won me the game here.
I see from the forum that getting an early religion is not normally a good idea, but in this case I think Kublai starts with Mysticism and Budism is one of his favourite religions, so I went for it. I beat of 2 attacks from the AI and tried to prepare for that as a precaution. Got a points victory of just over 5000 my highest ever just as Churchill launced his spaceship.

Now if I had done this slower perhaps I could have done better, not much good at specialising either. My performance was that of Nero! Attaching saved file if anyone would care to comment. Thanks. Still need to improve but this is a start.

 

[Tony.Uk]

I've been playing for two years now, and usually hold my own at Noble and won a few at Prince. I've managed domination/conquest victories by around 1600, so I don't feel too bad. I've never really played a computer game until this one, so I don't have a good frame of reference. My point is that the nature of the game requires one to think carefully through each game rather than following a fixed strategy. I'm not a dedicated player by any means, but I've found it to be an entertaining and challenging diversion since I retired (I'm probably one of the older players).

Note to TMIT: I marvel at your patience in answering neophyte questions (including many of my own). You've been a huge help to players willing to listen and learn. Thanx.

Well I'm 60, and not sure my brain up to it anymore. Working from home as accountant part time, have plenty of time usually but dare not touch this during the day!! normally 10pm - 1pm and tiring.

 

[Olfart]

One of the things I enjoy most about this game and forum is the diversity of the contributers. I'm 67 and have picked up lots of useful tips from teenagers in the forum. I'm also impressed that the discussions are usually civil and frequently constructive. Now if we could just get society in general to act like that....

 

[Jaaboo]

I see from the forum that getting an early religion is not normally a good idea, but in this case I think Kublai starts with Mysticism and Budism is one of his favourite religions, so I went for it.

Founding a religion, while fun, and profitable, is usually a bad idea because your beakers (and later, hammers) could go to a more useful tech choice. Religion will spread to you, that's never a worry, and if it doesn't, while one AI is spending hammers on monasteries and missionaries, you're spending on an army to take said religion for your own.

Kubai is a great leader to practice war with. My first Noble win came as Kublai (in Noble's Club III) and it was much easier than I thought it would be. I got some settlers out, claimed horses & copper, and went to work. Thinking back on that game, I can remember a lot of mistakes I made, but it was still easy. Why? I had a plan and stuck with it. It was a pangea game, which gave me one bit of tactical advantage, knowing the map type, and I planned early to be a true Khan and unleash the Golden Horde.

I had to skip a lot of what crutches I was using. Religion was a big one. Wang Kong was right next to me and his ability to tech well would nab Hinduism. Judaism went to Liz. Buddhism went to Justinian. Already, I had the proto-continent divided into three factions. Had I taken a religion, one of those factions were to be mine, and since religion spreads along trade routes, I'd be attacking my own friends while furthering alienating those distant (and more of a threat) to me.

Now on to your game, I haven't had a chance to look at the save, but going from what you typed;

1. Founding religion. Usually not totally worth it for reasons laid out many times here. Chasing religion leads worker techs undiscovered, and getting your land developed is key to a good start. A good start pays off down the line - the first 1000 years are crucial to the rest of your game.

2. Early War. Kublai is such a great warrior in the early stages of the game, because, yes, of his aggressive trait, but also for the unique unit of Mongolia, the Keshik. The Keshik has such great synergy with Kublai, almost more so than Genghis. The ability to attack cities from two tiles away is very powerful, and the mobility that a Keshik army provides is second-to-none. Being able to attack a city with 20% culture the same turn you declare war means no whipped defenders in between turns. Chariots can do this, but only if there are no hills or forests between their location and a city. Keshiks ignore terrain costs for movement.

Also, ignore the -penalty for attacking cities. Keshiks fresh out of a Ger & Barracks can have flanking II, which provides a very good chance of retreating from a battle, making them good to soften up targets. They also can easily reach Combat III which gives them excellent odds on all classical & ancient units.

With Kublai, a fast, blitzkrieg-esque war can net you a lot of territory quick. I like Kublai over Genghis for this type of war because of his Creative trait, which saves hammers on having to build monuments, and starts claiming land immediately after you capture a city, and gives cultural defense in a city faster should you need to weather a counter-attack.

Later on, cities are going to have 80%-100% cultural defense and you'll need seige (or a massive tech bonus) to take cities, but in the early game, before Longbows show up, Kublai is one of the best.

3. Victory Conditions. Score during the game is only important for ONE victory condition: Time. (Highest score @ 2050 AD) On Noble and higher, you are not often going to win a time victory. So don't plan on it. Unless one AI gets a very lucky set of circumstances, no AI is going to win on Noble before 1950-ish. You can see what victories an AI is going for by clicking the red "fist" icon which brings up the victory screen. If an AI is going for space, you can see the status of their projects. Likewise for culture, it will identify the cities going for culture, and likewise, for all other conditions.

By the mid game, you should be able to identify what sort of victory you're going for. This is not optional - unless you just want to turn victory conditions off and play SimCivilization, you're going to continue to be frustrated when the computer wins, because they're playing to win, and you're not. It's not hard to pick a victory.

Likewise, you need to identify what victories the AI is going for? Is there a single Civ that is starting to steamroll nearby Civs? You might make it a priority to build an army able to take the monster out (and by doing so, claim their lands and possibly victory). Is there a Civ going for culture? They likely have weak defenses. Get a map, find a culture city closest to your borders and RAZE IT TO THE GROUND. You pretty much just took that AI out of the race. Is there an AI that's getting a lot of votes? This can be tricky, since playing diplomacy is tough. But, if you have a window of war, use it, get larger, and control the AP/UN from a bully pulpit.

Its easy to fall into the line of thought that you have to play as if you were that leader, but with all the advantages of a modern, enlightened viewpoint. Skipping slavery, State Property, Police State - playing nice and yet trying to maintain strength and independence. But Civ is a game, and like every game, there's a method to beat it.


Edit: Also, yes to the props to TMIT. He's been one of the big helps in getting me from playing Warlord/Chieftain to Prince/Monarch, following his posts & games are a big help.

 

[kaltorak]

I also made a lot of mistakes when I switched to civ4. Reading Sisiutil's guide, this forums, watching tmit's videos and following games on the forums, helped me change mentallity from older versions to civ4

 

[avandol]

Tony, you make the same mistake I did:
1. You think that diplomacy is like actual diplomacy in real. Don't. Look at it like as action-reaction triggered. If you want a computer opponent to like you, dont deny him everything and/or make him presents. Money, maps, techs, units. He likes em all.
The computer is also trying to win. So no matter what the AI is towards you - if you are the weakkest link, he attacks you.

2. FoW doesnt exist for the AI. It is a handicap which you can adapt to, while the AI can hardly adapt to anything If you know how, you can split the Stack of Doom, you can make the AI attack you at an opportune time (like when you have a def pact) or you can have him standing at some city waiting for his catapults while you whittle away his units one by one.
If the AI doesnt "cheat" (and its not cheating, its buffing the AI to make the game harder/more enjoyable) its just a walkthrough.

And if you want that, play on easier levels.

Noble is boring for most of the experienced players since it just means going through the clicks to see the end score.

Be reminded that each diff. level takes some learning to master. The higher you go, the longer it takes.

I wont go into details on how to win your session - if you need tips, there lots available in these forums.

Sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes, horrible headache right now...

 

[r_rolo1]

My friend, AI has FOW .... they just see a little further than humans, to compensate the fact they have very limited memory ( they don't remember they saw a unit in the previous turn ). The only thing that is close of no FOW in Civ IV is the logic that chooses the target to attack, that reads the garrisons of all the enemy cities, regardless of being visible to the AI or not . But that knowledge is not leaked out of that function ...