Civ4 warmongering

Ravinhood said:
It really tickles me these people that play these "tiny" maps and brag about beating the AI on diety. That's why they have the "standard" maps. Those are the true victory over the AI's maps. Anything less is just a piddle game and the AI is easily exploited on small maps because the player will just rush and burn them as the OP states. On a standard map you will never get away with this nor playing with the standard 7 AI's.

The ultimate victory over the AI is on a HUGE PANGEA map with max civs on diety, when you can win on that map with "aggressive AI and raging barbarians" come back an talk to us. ;)

Leave your tiny map victories to impress your 8 year old lil brother, he might ewww and ahhh about it. lol

Standard map + diety = True victory...

Ravinhood said:
LOL Look how small that world is, just as I suspected. As I said anything less than HUGE PANGEA 100x80 or 80x60, DIETY, MAX CIVS (18) with Aggressive AI, and Raging Barbarians is nothing but a kiddie game of Diety. Come back when you meet that challenge. ;)

Also everyone knows the space race is the easiest of all the victory conditions to win of all the conditions. I don't even play with it.

Less than Huge pangea + agressive AI + Raging barbarians = kiddie game...

Are you misquoting yourself or just a firm believer that only kids can win true victories?
 
Islandia said:
I would be glad to post about the strategy but I don't want to appear to be bragging or whatever ravinhood implied so I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

Please do not let him or the noise bother you. I, for one, would enjoy reading about your strategy. You seem quite successful and have put a lot of actual thought in your games, so pelase don't hesitate to share your insights and findings! :) The board and the community here would benefit from it.
 
Ravinhood said:
Hell no I'm not saying that at all till I do it. ;) I just believe that is the ultimate win condition of Diety thas all. ;) I can certainly do what the OP did though, play on a tiny/small map and overwhelm the AI with just a flood of units. Hell we can all do that, that's nothing new from previous Diety victories of other CIV games. Let's see something new like "conquest", "domination", "culture", instead of "space race victory". Let's see him win a Diety Diplomatic victory. ;)

Yeah, not that I want to denigrate the other guy, but I couldn't see the point of playing Deity on a tiny map either. I mean, he seems to have a strategy of placing his first city so the other Civs can't expand and that's it. What's the point? It's not as though you can call yourself a brilliant strategist when all that's required for victory is such an elementary tactic.

No, I have to agree that you can really only call yourself a Deity master if you play on a standard size map with standard settings, ie no mods.

As for myself, I found Civ3 to be plenty challenging enough on Monarch. I started out with Civ4 on Prince but soon bumped it down to Noble :blush: Hopefully I'll be able to return to a higher setting at a later stage.
 
Islandia said:
I would be glad to post about the strategy but I don't want to appear to be bragging or whatever ravinhood implied so I'll let the screenshots speak for themselves.

I'd also like to add myself to the group of people who'd love to hear about what strategies and techniques you used to pull off the non-conquest victory on Deity. I found your initial post really informative, and I definitely did not think it came off as bragging, and I'm sorry that other posters may have given you that impression. I'm still only on my second game, but I really enjoy reading in-depth posts about the kinds of strategies that other people have been successful with.
 
Sirian said:
It's definitely more challenging when the AIs can reach you by land, though. I expect it would be tougher to do on Pangaea. Financial is also the strongest trait when going for Space, and maybe the strongest in general: facing multiple Financial AIs while yourself not being Financial is also tougher, as is Low Sea Level vs High.

- Sirian

Actually I have you to thank for me picking the financial trait. I am writing up a civ4 tale about this specific game that I will post in that section later, but here are some initial thoughts. When you mentioned that early military conquest is certainly possible, but parlaying it into a longer term advantage on a normal map was the key, I realized that I need to pick a civ with a key early game advantage that could then transition into a more civilized mode of existence. I narrowed down my choices to either the greeks (Philosophical, Aggressive & Phalanxes) or the incans (Financial & Aggressive & super warriors). Aggressive is pretty much a must have to consistently get the kind of odds of winning early battles against overwhelming odds, and Philosphical and Financial are both very strong end game traits.

I decided on the incans for this round because (as you can see from the screenshot) I really really like cottages :) though I believe the greeks stand an equally good chance especially if you use that first great prophet as a super specialist in your capital (17 turns of losing out on 2 food 1 production for a philosophical civ once you hit around 5 population where you hit happiness and health issues anyway to pop that first great prophet out is well worth +3 production and +5 gold for the rest of the game in your capital...the super monestary thing can wait til later when you have enough cities with the religion to make it worth while).

Very fortunately I started next to a hill so I spent 40 years walking my settler up to hill in order to get that extra production point and then start on a warrior. Within the first 5 turns I ran into the Japanese immediately north of me so I swapped the warrior production into a barracks instead (10 turns because I'm aggressive (only costs 30) and I got the extra shield on my capital for 3 each. After getting the barracks I maneuvered my first quecha to the outskirts of the second Japanese town (they start with two settlers) where I waited for their initial worker to build a road between the two towns. As soon as I saw him I attacked and grabbed him back to my capital where I proceeded to immediately use him to irrigate.

attachment.php


Of course this led to war with the Japanese who by now had three towns pushed against my borders but that is life! After my city reached size 3 pumping out warriors, I swapped to a settler and had my worker chop two trees outside my initial 21 square radius but near my capital to speed him out while camping in the jungles outside of tokyo (3rd jap town) with 4 quechas. I moved my settler over to the left to build only to find out that the romans had built neapolis right next to my capital city effectively bottling me in to the edge of the peninsula. So I swapped back to full quecha production and used them to pillage the japanese and keep them off me until I had 6 of them versus the 3 archers in Tokyo and I proceeded to take the town. Meanwhile I continued scouting the entire Japanese and roman spheres of influence to keep them from hooking up to a bronze source because axemen would effectively finish me off. Using these guerilla tactics I took both of the remaining Japanese cities setting me up for 4 cities (costing me 9 gold in maintenance a turn 5 for # and 4 for distance). Then it was time to turn upon the roman threat.
attachment.php
[

Part 2 continued later :)
 
Ravinhood said:
Yawn!! nami nami nami. I knew the bragging AAR was coming. lol
Jeez, aren't you just the most annoying little asswhipe or what? Why don't you go back to your kiddie-games and let the adults take care of the grown-up discussion.

In fact, posts like Islandias, detailing the strategy employed to achieve a successful win on higher difficulties is extremely beneficial for players with less experience. I for one, apreciate your posts very much Islandia, and I would be surprised if anyone else than Ravinhood, in his twisted little world, would consider them bragging.

I am actually kind of surprised the moderators haven't booted the sorry little ass already..
 
Ravinhood said:
Yawn!! nami nami nami. I knew the bragging AAR was coming. lol
Really, what is your problem? Some of us would really like to hear how he did it. You just sound like you're jealous of his success.
 
Islandia said:
Let me preface this post by saying that I love civ4 and it is really a well polished and fun game which I find to be a lot more enjoyable than my civ3 experience. However, I am curious to see if anyone else thinks that the latest incarnations of the civ series have turned into an all out war by conquest at the higher difficulty levels. There is no other path to victory without being an aggressive war monger which is quite different from civ2 and the original civ where even on deity, you could expand aggressively and then peacefully tech up in the game without getting into any major wars. In civ3 and civ4 it seems like early military action is your only option because even expanding and defending large swaths of land will not let you then switch over to productively building your empire. That was what ultimately turned me off to civ3 and I hope that it is not the same way in civ 4 so I would like to hear some opinions.

Here is my anecdotal observations about deity level in civ4. I just completed a deity game on a tiny pangaea map with 3 civs by (you guessed it) conquest victory. This after having lost 3 or 4 deity games in a row trying to peacefully block out large chunks of land and then competing with the ai in the tech race. What I discovered is that practically you can limit each of your computer opponents to about 4 cities if you carefully place your second one, however even with 4 cities the computer has such a major advantage in research and tech that I was left in the dust by about 1000ad. Part of the problem is that on deity, with only 1 health and 3 happiness, you are forced to adopt hereditary rule for much of the time to get your cities above size 6 or 7, but the major problem seems to be the ridiculous upkeep costs of maintaining an empire on deity. The second city you found will always cost you 2 city maintenance and 1 distance cost (on a tiny map) and the third is something like a total of 7 or 8 (depending on distance). This means the entire strategy revolves around blocking off huge swaths of land for later development with only 3 cities (4 is about 16 gold maintenance which pretty much means 0 research). Playing this out I eventually had an empire of 10 cities (only adding when I could put 60% into research, by the end of the game the city maintenance costs were in the 100s) to the 4 and 3 cities of each of the computer opponents respectively, and still lost in the space race very very badly.

So I stopped the peaceful diplomatic approach and decided to go aggressive early to limit them to maybe 2 cities each and then develop peacefully and play out the full game (one of my favorite tactics in both civ2 and civ3). After a while of figuring out the AI, winning wars against it wasn't too hard (horse archer + axeman setting up shop around their capital pillaging away is pretty unbeatable). Unfortunately even though this approach got me my goal of limiting their growth, it still didn't work because taking over computer cities cost far too much in the early game to maintain them. When I took York and London (both size 10 cities), I ended up having to sack them because the maintenance costs would have been more than the cities could pay for by themselves) i.e. each city would cost me 20 gold and could generate maybe 12 or 13. Anyway this turned into an untenable situation so I eventually just finished off the english and then the aztecs while running 10% research on 4 cities (I was still running a deficit but the pillaging and sacking of cities would get me just enough gold to get to the next city).

Yes a win is a win and now I have a way to beat the computer on deity, but it really isn't all that enjoyable. I prefer playing long drawn out games where I can beat the computer to the wonders and play in the space race, but it seems like this style of play is just not possible at the higher difficulty levels. Any thoughts on maybe something I am missing out on to make a more peaceful solution possible? Or am I doomed to picking the mongolians, aztecs, greeks, and maybe romans (civs I really don't like that much) for the rest of my deity civ4 gaming?


I see your point, and I think it's absolutely true, because the AI gets so significanty economic cheating boost at higher difficulties, that they are impossible to beat in a tech race. So you can only defeat them in war, because the AI manages warfare far worse then economy. IMHO when you play the game so well, that you even compete against deity, you should rather play in multiplayer. There no one has any advantages, and a peaceful victory is possible too I guess. To tell the truth I have only played 1 multiplayer game, but it was great fun. Much better then vs. AI.
 
MSTK said:
I actually agree with ravinhood. People who play amazing games that I would never be able to win should all be labeled as losers.

</sarcasm>

OFF: Sometimes I feel so happy that I was born in Europe and not in the US, and people here are tolerant, don't call each other losers, there is solidarity here, people don't work they ass off etc... I don't even understand why you categorize people as losers etc... I just dont understand you ^^sry, it was real off, just I felt suddenly so happy, that I had to write it :P
 
Back
Top Bottom