Condensed tips for beginners?

[Nick Carpathia]

Yep, that's the best way to think about it.

I could let my worker finish 4 turns later, or I can whip him and regrow, and meanwhile I've gained an additional 4 workerturns over someone else who didn't.

Or the good old-fashioned whip a ton of knights, tech military tradition, and suddenly have 6 curaissers available on turn 1, and another 6 the turn after, and 5 turns later you have a massive stack ready to roll through your unfortunate opponent.

As opposed to letting every single curaisser build normally, having the same number available in 10 turns, and your opponent having noticed your buildup and spammed pikes and wellies into his front cities. The former deliberately traded-off their population and research to build military, and are hence more likely to win.

 

[Dubioza]

Thanks guys! Make sense
I was adding, subtracting, counting in IMP but couldn't figure it out
Another question, how can you adjust which tiles will be whipped? In this example, let's say I work 2 mined hills, farm and unimproved horses. It would whip away 1 hill and horses? What if you want to whip away farm and hill combo? (dumb example, but can something like this be done?)

 

[Sisiutil]

Thanks guys! Make sense
I was adding, subtracting, counting in IMP but couldn't figure it out
Another question, how can you adjust which tiles will be whipped? In this example, let's say I work 2 mined hills, farm and unimproved horses. It would whip away 1 hill and horses? What if you want to whip away farm and hill combo? (dumb example, but can something like this be done?)

You don't whip away "tiles", you whip away the citizens who are working those tiles. If you want, on the turn after the whip, you can re-assign your remaining citizens to any tiles you wish to work--provided you have the citizens and the food to support them.

 

[Dubioza]

I feel so stupid right now. I'm off by a turn

 

[JoeZoo]

I'm new to Civ4, and after playing through several games and reading some articles I have a decent grasp of what to do. However, I never know when I'm doing well or when I am behind.

What are the common benchmarks to shoot for? Like, for example, how many cities should I have by a certain turn? By turn 100, say, how many beakers should I have minimum, or conversely, how many would I need to run away with a tech lead? When should I get my first Great Person?

If I knew these standard benchmarks I could evaluate my play so much easier. As it is, I have to play the game out before I suddenly discover I have a research shortage or lack of production.

 

[Kallikrates]

I am not as experienced as many others here, but on normal size, normal speed 6-8 cities by 1 AD, either by founding the yourself or by conquest seems a benchmark almost universally agreed upon.
I guess I never really tried to leverage early Great persons in an optimal fashion (and balancing between early expansion, conquest and wonders, Great persons is of course something one only learns by experience), but for a non-philosophical leader, I'd say 1-2 GPs by 1 AD, for a philosophical leader 2-4. I usually get the first Scientist too early for bulbing philosophy (because I have not researched/traded all the prerequisites), so I either wait some time (if I lack a religion and have a decent chance to be the first with philosophy) or I use the first one for an academy. (My current experience is from playing Monarch/Emperor, the AI are teching slower on lower levels where Taoism will often only be founded around 300-500 AD)

 

[Sisiutil]

I'm new to Civ4, and after playing through several games and reading some articles I have a decent grasp of what to do. However, I never know when I'm doing well or when I am behind.

What are the common benchmarks to shoot for? Like, for example, how many cities should I have by a certain turn? By turn 100, say, how many beakers should I have minimum, or conversely, how many would I need to run away with a tech lead? When should I get my first Great Person?

If I knew these standard benchmarks I could evaluate my play so much easier. As it is, I have to play the game out before I suddenly discover I have a research shortage or lack of production.

One of the great things about this game is that as soon as someone tries to answer these questions, someone else will come along and say they're wrong. There is such variation from one game to another that setting benchmarks is difficult.

That being said, the early empire size Kallikrates mentioned is indeed commonly agreed upon, mainly because it's difficult to win with fewer cities than that (though, again, the one city challenge aficionados would scoff at that statement). As for everything else, the best advice I can give is have a good look at the map (by which I mean not just the terrain and resources available to you, but also other factors like strategic chokepoints, who your neighbours and where they're located, etc.); based on what seems possible based on the map, determine an overall game strategy. What will be your preferred victory condition, and how will you get there? What will be the necessary goals to achieve along the way, which ones are the nice-to-haves that you can forgo if pressed, and which ones are nonessential?

The surest way to determine how you're doing is not to angst over the scoreboard or the many other yardsticks the game gives you, but how closely you are on-plan to your overall game strategy.

 

[JSS]

Nvm. Figured it out.

 

[Sisiutil]

Here's a quick one I just figured out after HOW MANY YEARS of playing this game?!?

You find an untouched goody hut on a distant, uninhabited island mid-game. The problem is, the hut is protected by a Warrior/Archer/Spearman; Caravels can't carry military units, and even if you do wait for Astronomy, Scouts & Explorers get better results (i.e. no barbs).

Solution: Send two Caravels, one with a Scout, one with another Scout or, better yet, a slightly-stronger Explorer. Park the two units close to the hut--the sacrificial Scout on terrain with no defensive bonus, the Explorer on a hill, forest, jungle, or some combination. The barb unit will be unable to resist moving off of the hut to attack your poor weak Scout, leaving your Explorer free to pop the hut and, assuming he has a move left, scoot away unharmed.

 

[rah]

Hmm, I've never seen a barb move off the hut. I know I've moved scouts next to them in the past. Maybe it was always on favorable terrain so it wasn't tempting enough. Good to know.

 

[duckstab]

I've never tried this, but I heard you can pop an "occupied" goody hut with a Spy.

 

[Ghpstage]

I've never tried this, but I heard you can pop an "occupied" goody hut with a Spy.

Yes this works, and spies can't be caught in barb culture either.

 

[Sisiutil]

I've never tried this, but I heard you can pop an "occupied" goody hut with a Spy.

Yes this works, and spies can't be caught in barb culture either.

Cool, it's unreal to still be learning new things about this game.

I tried popping a guarded hut with a spy in a recent game and I can also verify that it works. However, spies have the same hut odds as regular military units--that is, they have a chance of popping barb units from the hut. Granted, the barbs won't harm the spy since they can't see him/her, but it means your odds of getting a positive result are slightly better with a Scout or Explorer.

So I stand by my original tip of using a "sacrificial Scout" to get the best odds of a good result. I should note, however, that I play with the Better BUG AI mod, so that may very well be affecting the barb units' willingness to venture off a hut to attack a weak unit like a Scout.

 

[Marguerite Ming]

A good rule of thumb is: Are you able to open borders with anyone at all? If the answer is yes, you should be running Free Market. Mercantilism will almost invariably do more harm than good to a cottage based economy (yes, it's even worse than Decentralization), and is of debatable value to a specialist based one. It is only good if you can't form foreign trade routes anyway, i.e. you are at war or on too poor terms with all other civs to get open borders.

Mercantilism basically gives you 1 more tile being worked (you can look at it like that) in each city. If your average city size is 10, then it's about a 10% increase in production across your empire, an increase that doesn't take you 30-50 turns to build while you improve land and grow cities. If your average city size is less, then it has more impact. If your average city size is 20, then it's a 5% gain. Those numbers ignore the effect on GP production, and the effects of philosophical trait, pacifism, and representation. Also, city health and happiness don't appply to free specialists, so you don't have to take care of them.

A lot of people seem to focus on the effects in single cities, and miss the bigger strategic picture. I play almost excusively on huge maps/marathon, where long term thinking is a must.

 

[Jastrow]

Hmmm.... That is rather dreadful analisis....

It is one extra tile per city, which may be a 10 percent production increase... How much production is that??

Compare it to no foreign trade routes. At a standard 3 trade routes per city, which should be at least an average of 12 gold per city. What fraction of your empire "production" is that.

 

[duckstab]

You of course still get domestic trade routes, and your vassals are considered "domestic" for this purpose. And you don't get foreign trade routes with anyone who's running Merc themselves, even if you're running FM. I've had games where every AI switches into Merc as soon as they discover Banking.

 

[Shogun6771]

whats the verdict on turning off vassals? cheating?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Winning Conquest Victory is definitely harder with the "No Vassals" option. All options are valid, though some CFC sponsored competitions may prohibit use of some options and require use of other options.

For example, the Civ 4 Hall of Fame allows No Vassals as optional.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Sisiutil]

whats the verdict on turning off vassals? cheating?

Who are you cheating? You're playing against a computer. If playing with vassals off (or on) makes the game more enjoyable, do so.

 

[Olson]

This is close, but not exact. The amount of XP units gain from fighting depends on the ratio of modified strengths ('R value') between them, and whether the winner is attacking or defending.

XP often does appear to come from combat odds, but attackers get significantly more XP than defenders and first strikes increase combat odds without changing the R value, meaning the XP gained doesn't go down.
Theres a section on XP in the combat explained article in the war academy. Link.

I see the idea of a (semi)non-combat medic isn't my own invention but it is one I've independently "discovered" while figuring-out how a Great General (GG) works. I thought I could load several units onto a GG to create an army and ended-up with just a chariot instead of a chariot with horse archers. This evolved to creating a chariot-medic and then a scout-medic that got experience points (XPs), from a village, that I gave Woodsman I & II (it was a heavily forested/jungled map). Now I deliberately create a couple of scouts (if I don't start with one) for the eventuality of getting a GG.

Sisiutil's use of the Leadership (+100% combat experience) on a unit that can attack (unlike a scout) might be a better way to go.

Scout Medic (less likely to be chosen as a defender than an Explorer Medic)= Scout + GG-given: Combat I (+10% strength) [which is prereq. for Medic I] + Medic I (heals stacked units +10%) [which is prereq. for Medic II] + Medic II (heals adjacent units +10%) + Medic III (heals both stacked and adjacent units an extra +15% on top of Medic I's +10%).

However, like I said above, a low spec attacking unit might be a better choice as a Super Medic clean-up unit (attacking severely injured units for additional XPs). I'll give that a try.