Condensed tips for beginners?

Thanks! I beginning not to feel as a newbie any more. Your words made sense to me :).

I'm thinking of getting BtS. Is there people who has BtS who still keeps playing Vanilla, or is it a common feeling that BtS is much better?

I play Vanilla (and Warlords expansion) only during Game of the Month and some Hall of Fame competitions as it is required. BtS is a more complex and provides a richer experience, but its basically the same game. For new players, its probably easier to "learn the ropes" on Vanilla.

The thing which makes BtS better (for me) is the BUFFY mod which provides the information about the game that is available within the game but would be very tedious to collect (for example, when an AI is preparing for a war, it will refuse to declare war on anyone because "We have enough on our hands right now"; you could enter into diplomacy with every leader every turn and learn exactly when they start to prepare for war... or you can use BUFFY or BUG mod which alerts you; same for when tech trades become available). The gameplay is unaltered, but all the obtainable information is obtained for you automatically... As far as I know, there is not a similar mod for Vanilla, and I couldn't use it in competitions even if there were. So when I do play Vanilla I inevitably make decisions based on bad information because I was too lazy to check something every turn.

Or you might want to just wait another 8 months until Civ5 comes out. :scan:
 
BtS is so much better. What's more, with the 3.19 patch for BtS, there's no disk-check either :)
 
Or you might want to just wait another 8 months until Civ5 comes out. :scan:


:) Yes, but there is some advantage to discover Civ IV that late. I have more fun waiting, while i play my "new" game BtS.

I'll buy it...it only costs 10-12 Euro...
 
Okay, here is the situation I'm playing Augustus as Rome on the GEM-Modern Resources.

I can have 5 city locations if I act fast. I have copper and Iron in the BFC. I need culture for my 4 other cities. Problem, There are alot of Spiritual civs out there. So, I'm out cold on Meditation or Polytheism, But there is a possibility of getting Monotheism.

In my last game, it is about 1600BC, I managed 5 cities, no religion, built Stonehenge, Great Wall, Pyramids, and the Temple of Artemis. But culture is still a problem in one of my cities and pushing inside my Great Wall. I have, stone, Marble and copper hooked up.

Now, if I replayed my game, I'm trying to figure out a decent strategy to use for Augustus. Do I try to keep all 5 cities, one is kicking the French culture Badly. Probably my first target. Any suggestions on tech research order? Build order? etc. I can get 2 huts and probably no more.
 
You're playing as Rome with iron in the capital's BFC and you're worried about how to fend off foreign culture?!? :rolleyes:

PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM PRAET SPAM

:hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

France = dead; voila, no culture issues! :goodjob:
 
I was just curious what the most normal course of action was. I just haven't played a lot in a while forgive me if i'm rusty. I was just looking for ideas. I looked at Vel's strat guide. I'm usually a hammer player. Build up and when ready, lay the hammer down.

I'm heading for IW next. The war machine is coming.

P.S. France is having a Roman influence issue, Hungary is my pain in the @ss.
 
I've been reading up on how to get a good start to the game and I've seen a lot of people say that it's a good idea to take out a weaker civilization early on. I've been trying this, but it seems to be more trouble than its worth. Each time I declare war, the civs that are friendly to the one I'm targeting declare war on me and I end up with a long drawn out war, even if I manage to take down the weaker civ.
Is it a matter of me leaving it to late, since they wouldn't be on such good terms before trading starts?
 
Sometimes you can target a civ that doesn't have lots of friends. Use the Foreign Advisor, especially the Glance screen. "early on" might also mean earlier than you think; in some situations if there's a capital reasonably near yours you can build a stack of warriors immediately and capture it -- you can even get your first worker by stealing it from a weak opponent. This early in the game, it's unlikely people have built up positive relations. If warriors seem too risky, go for Bronze Working ASAP and build axemen.
 
I've been reading up on how to get a good start to the game and I've seen a lot of people say that it's a good idea to take out a weaker civilization early on. I've been trying this, but it seems to be more trouble than its worth. Each time I declare war, the civs that are friendly to the one I'm targeting declare war on me and I end up with a long drawn out war, even if I manage to take down the weaker civ.
Is it a matter of me leaving it to late, since they wouldn't be on such good terms before trading starts?

I'm guessing you are waiting too long to go to war. It's not just a question of positive relations with other civs, your target probably needs enough tech and/or gold to be able to bribe the others into joining in. So you want to hit them long before that.

If you haven't already done so, read Sisiutil's early rush guide. Happy warmongering!
 
Cheers, I tried rushing with warriors in my last game. I was playing as Alexander and the Agressive trait along with a Barracks meant with Shock they fared decently against Warriors holed up in a town.

Sadly wiping the Ethiopians off the map didn't get me as a big an advantage as I'd have liked, since the Incas (who had already locked the Germans into staying on a little peninsula) expanded quickly near me while I was trying to build up economically. We ended up being the two dominant civilizations in the game, with the Incas being a bit ahead of me most of the time. I managed to eke out a cultural victory (and had a few Inca cities defect to me) by 1 turn though, having to convert all the population of my third cultural town to artists to sneak ahead of the Incas.
 
I've been reading up on how to get a good start to the game and I've seen a lot of people say that it's a good idea to take out a weaker civilization early on. I've been trying this, but it seems to be more trouble than its worth. Each time I declare war, the civs that are friendly to the one I'm targeting declare war on me and I end up with a long drawn out war, even if I manage to take down the weaker civ.
Is it a matter of me leaving it to late, since they wouldn't be on such good terms before trading starts?

I'm no expert by any means as I'm still struggling with Noble difficulty, but I can seem to always ensure a Domination victory if I rush a neighbor very early in the game. I've found that an early rush is only advantageous if one or more of the following are met:

A) You have a good early UU civ. Persian Immortals are my personal favorite and you can begin pumping them after just a few turns. Roman Praetorians are popular as well, though I wouldn't consider that an "early" rush since Iron would already be in the picture (by which time everyone has made friends).

B) Your closest neighbor is extremely close. The only time I've had luck with rushing is if the target's capitol was only ~10-15 tiles from mine. Otherwise the turns wasted getting there gives them more time to build defenders, not to mention maintenance costs will tend to stifle your research. This is pretty map dependent, since obviously there's no need to rush if you're relatively isolated with plenty of room for expansion.

C) Your target has not already made friends. All the more reason to rush extremely early, before they have contacted other civs and founded religions. Easy way to tell is to look at the Foreign Advisor screen under the Glance statistics. How many civs have + relations with your target? If a lot, don't bother rushing them.

Even without advanced start, many civs don't bother building more than 1 Warrior till they have a Worker out. Its risky, but if you conquer a single-city civ within the first few turns you just saved yourself a whole bunch of turns and didn't even have to worry about diplomatic relations.
 
I've found that an early rush is only advantageous if one or more of the following are met:
Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you on all of these! ;)
A) You have a good early UU civ. Persian Immortals are my personal favorite and you can begin pumping them after just a few turns. Roman Praetorians are popular as well, though I wouldn't consider that an "early" rush since Iron would already be in the picture (by which time everyone has made friends).
An early UU is absolutely not necessary for a successful early rush. Generic Axemen or Chariots will more than suffice. I'll grant that an early UU makes an early rush more attractive--even imperative in order to leverage one of the main benefits of playing as that civ--but it is not a requirement. You simply need to build a few more units--this is where chopping and whipping come into play.
B) Your closest neighbor is extremely close. The only time I've had luck with rushing is if the target's capitol was only ~10-15 tiles from mine. Otherwise the turns wasted getting there gives them more time to build defenders, not to mention maintenance costs will tend to stifle your research. This is pretty map dependent, since obviously there's no need to rush if you're relatively isolated with plenty of room for expansion.
I would tend to agree, except for the "extremely" part. If the target cities have other benefits--say, a holy city with a shrine, or just a lot of food and gold/gems/silver, say, then that can offset the maintenance costs you'll run into. If the opponent is distant and his cities offer few benefits, you can still gain a significant advantage by simply raiding his territory and stifling him--stealing workers, pillaging improvments, razing poorly-defended cities.
C) Your target has not already made friends. All the more reason to rush extremely early, before they have contacted other civs and founded religions. Easy way to tell is to look at the Foreign Advisor screen under the Glance statistics. How many civs have + relations with your target? If a lot, don't bother rushing them.[/QUOTE]
Worrying about this really depends upon your long-term strategy. If you plan on playing toward a domination win and being the biggest, baddest kid on the block, you won't be as worried about ticking off your first target's buddies, because they're likely going to be targets # 2, 3, and so on.

What you ideally want to do is to work the diplomatic angles so your other neighbours leave you alone while you war on another one. For example, in a recent game as JC of Rome, I had Ramesses and Justinian to my north, Wang Kon to my south. Ramesses built the Great Lighthouse, founded Buddhism, and built its shrine, making him an extremely attractive target. Justinian was his Buddhist bosom buddy. Wang Kon, on the other hand, founded Taoism (but did not build its shrine). Buddhism spread to my cities, but I waited for Taoism to do so before I chose a state religion. This ensured that Wang Kon was friendly (after several turns, literally) and left my southern border alone while I warred on Ramesses and Justinian, each in turn. Wang Kon also eventually fell to the Praet storm, but not until after I'd finished off my northern neighbours.
 
I'm trying to get a win on emperor but the initial maintenance costs from REXing really starts to hurt after just a few cities. I get techs like alphabet/currency, but my tech rate never really recovers (running CE). Do I have to rush someone early on to gain an edge or should I just expect to be behind in tech most of the game and beeline for military techs like rifling/steel later on? Also, about how many cities should I found for myself early on on a pangaea map? I'm stuck with ~3 or 4 cities if I want to keep a reasonable tech rate going.
 
I'm trying to get a win on emperor but the initial maintenance costs from REXing really starts to hurt after just a few cities. I get techs like alphabet/currency, but my tech rate never really recovers (running CE). Do I have to rush someone early on to gain an edge or should I just expect to be behind in tech most of the game and beeline for military techs like rifling/steel later on? Also, about how many cities should I found for myself early on on a pangaea map? I'm stuck with ~3 or 4 cities if I want to keep a reasonable tech rate going.

First, there is no one formula.

Second, on Emperor level it is hard to be the tech leader early unless you are sacrificing a lot of the expansion/military to do so.

Its ok to let the tech slider fall. If you are going for REX, you are investing in the future. 6 cities by 1AD on a standard map is fairly normal expansion rate for me, rather than true REX. When I REX, I approach deficit at 0% research. Make lots of workers, not just settlers.

Why REX? REX should get you land, good city sites, and to keep from falling too far behind in tech you want to trade a lot of tech, usually. But you know, without knowing if your next to Monte, Shaka and Toku instead of Hatty, Mansa, and Ghandi... any advice I could give you would be probably wrong.
 
First, there is no one formula.
^ Most important piece of advice. Ever.

I'll agree with aiming for 6 cities on a standard sized map. If teching is your aim (eg, space race, or fast diplo victory) then you'll need at least 6 cities to build 6 universities to build Oxford Uni, which is great. The number changes depending on the map size.

If teching isn't your aim, eg, conquest, domination or culture victories, your priorities might be different.

Another piece of advice I can add is at higher levels - particularly on a standard sized pangea map where you've met everyone - it often pays to research unusual techs purely for trading out. Aesthetics for example can often net you Alphabet, Monarchy, Iron Working, etc. It's not always best to research Alphabet yourself.
 
If the person you're trading with has Alphabet, yes. It's like that with Paper too.
 
:confused: Is it possible to trade technology before you get alphabet yourself?
Yes, as Arakhor said - provided the other person has Alpha you can trade techs. And in my experience the AI will often trade out Alphabet even if they have a monopoly on it. Plus, they tend to get it reasonably early - often faster than you the player if you're at a high difficulty level. Aesthetics on the other hand is often ignored by the AI, except by the real peaceniks like Ghandi.
 
Okay, Here is the situation. It is 1600BC. Rome will have IW in 21 turns. she has 4 cities. will get wheel after IW. She has 3 Warriors and 5 Axemen. Got the free Shock I Axe event. Will have Pyraminds in a few turns. No one seems interested in war. Hungary has a lot of Axe. France has warriors and Archers.

After the Mids are done, which government will benefit me most?

Plans build 3 settlers. before finishing war machine. Plan is to keep two French cities and build about 3 more, raze the rest. Hit with Axe first or wait for Praets?

Oh, btw, I somehow popped Mysticism, took chance got Poly and Mono, Have both Hindu and Judaism. Converting cities to Judaism (Rome actually is Hindu Holy City). That way I have an excuse to convert the heathen French.

My thought Axe the French, then put the Hungarians to the Sword.

Any Suggestions?
 
Aesthetics on the other hand is often ignored by the AI, except by the real peaceniks like Ghandi.

My game must be squirrelly (and also I suck at this game that I love so much) Ghandi nearly always tries to war early with someone when he shows up in my games.
 
Back
Top Bottom