Condensed tips for beginners?

[Derakon]

You can basically think of corporations as being like religions. Religions provide +1 happy and +1 culture to each city they're in, and all they require is that people be there. You can found them by being the first to discover a tech, and spread them with missionaries. If you have the holy site for a religion, then it generates money for each city that has the religion.

Corporations give a variety of effects to each city they're in, but they require certain resources to give those effects (which depends on the corp). You can found them by researching a tech and then spending a Great Person, and spread them with corporate executives. You automatically get the headquarters of the corporation when you found it, and it gets money for each city that has the corporation.

One other quirk about corps is that they can provide important strategic resources -- specifically, the Ethanol corp can give you access to oil, and the Aluminum corp can give you access to aluminum. You need the appropriate resources to feed into the corp to get that access, though. Still, they can be good ways to get those resources if you don't have any other access. Ethanol in particular as most of the late-game military units require oil.

 

[Coppy90]

Okay, thanks!

 

[Ataxerxes]

Can someone tell a newbie like me how Corporations work? I'm confused by all these mechanics.

Couple of tips for corporations. Don't put them in a city without a courthouse generally. They have a high maintenance cost. Improperly used, corps can hurt you. Be very careful about spreading the corporation to other Civs. There's a reason you want to corporation and you might not want to share the benefits.

Try to have to corporate headquarters in your Wall Street City. Extra Gold is always nice. This will often offset the maintenance cost of spreading the corporation.

 

[tuore]

I'm not sure if I've completely understood the ways of teching, even though I've played the game since 2008. Are there any other ways to increase tech speed than creating scientists, increasing research budget or making a city produce research? I just wonder how some people finish space races in 1800s, while for me even with Chieftain I couldn't do it before 1900s.
E: And of course, building certain buildings also increases tech rate.

 

[cabert]

I'm not sure if I've completely understood the ways of teching, even though I've played the game since 2008. Are there any other ways to increase tech speed than creating scientists, increasing research budget or making a city produce research? I just wonder how some people finish space races in 1800s, while for me even with Chieftain I couldn't do it before 1900s.
E: And of course, building certain buildings also increases tech rate.

raising "tech budget" only works if your base commerce is big enough
so the most powerful way to increase your tech rate is to expand

beware though, because the biggest way to kill your research is to over-expand

edit: there are BC space victories in the HoF a save with a 90BC space victory

 

[AutomatedTeller]

trading, of course.

have a lot of cities - take over your continent early - build a lot of cottages.

 

[tuore]

trading, of course.

have a lot of cities - take over your continent early - build a lot of cottages.

Hmm. I have forgotten trading unless another AI nation has something I haven't got and I need. Thanks for the tips, both of you!

 

[AutomatedTeller]

There are a couple of other ways to gain tech:

Pointy-stick (sort of like trading, but the trade is that you'll stop beating them up for 10 turns)
Espionage
Bulbing (ie, having a great person research it)
Liberalism (get a tech for free if you are first)
oracle (gives you a tech for free)
Internet (gives you techs that other people have)

Deficit research (where you tech at 100% despite losing money) - gets funded by trading for gold, building wealth (instead of research), getting fail gold for wonders, taking cities, trading for gpt, shrines, corporations, merchant specialists...

 

[tuore]

Hm, that raises another question. What tech should I pick when I get Oracle/Liberalism? I usually take the one that would take the most time, unless it's a poor tech.

 

[Sisiutil]

Hm, that raises another question. What tech should I pick when I get Oracle/Liberalism? I usually take the one that would take the most time, unless it's a poor tech.

Obviously you want to choose a relatively expensive tech rather than one you could easily research on your own; Astronomy will be a better choice than Banking, for example.

However, you have to consider the game situation as well. Astronomy is a popular Liberalism choice, but it may not always make sense. What if the AI researched it before you? Maybe you could acquire it through trade instead. What if you're playing a Pangaea map? Aside from allowing you to build Observatories, Astronomy's usefulness is much diminished on Pangaeas.

Nationalism is sometimes a better option, but usually only if you have a decent shot at building the Taj Mahal (i.e. you have marble) and if you're going to get some use out of running Nationalism (typically to do some drafting).

If you can determine that the AI leaders are not pursuing Liberalism too vigorously (espionage is useful for this), you may be able to research Liberalism within 1 turn of completion, then switch to other techs and come back to complete it when an even later, juicier tech is available. For example, maybe you can acquire Astronomy either through trade or by lightbulbing Great Scientists, then use Liberalism for Chemistry and build a fleet of marauding Privateers long before anyone else can build Frigates. Rifling is another attractive "late Liberalism gambit" choice.

Another consideration would be your UU and UB. If you're playing as France, using Liberalism for Gunpowder to enable Musketeers might be the best choice. For Russia, you might snag Military Tradition to enable Cossacks (though you'll need Rifling as well).

The point is, you don't want to play Civ based on a cookie-cutter approach that you use every game. One of the most enjoyable things about this game is that each time you play it, it's different, prompting you to make different choices. No two Civ games are exactly the same.

 

[tuore]

Thanks. One last question:
How to fight a classical era war? I had a game as Augustus, and I declared war on Babylonia in BC 550. I sent tens of praetorians, chariots and spearmen and even got two great generals. Still it seems that when I get near their cities, the chances to win are very low. If I use the great general unit to attack, they win, but are in so bad condition that they are destroyed the next turn.

E: I saw that your sig has an "early rush" guide. Thank you a lot!

 

[Sisiutil]

Thanks. One last question:
How to fight a classical era war? I had a game as Augustus, and I declared war on Babylonia in BC 550. I sent tens of praetorians, chariots and spearmen and even got two great generals. Still it seems that when I get near their cities, the chances to win are very low. If I use the great general unit to attack, they win, but are in so bad condition that they are destroyed the next turn.

E: I saw that your sig has an "early rush" guide. Thank you a lot!

Babylon is a difficult early rush target as the Babylonian UU, the Bowman, has a bonus against melee units which are usually the backbone of an early rush: Axemen, Swordsmen, and, yes, Rome's usually-awesome Praetorians. You can still rush Hammurabi, just as you can rush a Protective leader, but you'll need more units--probably at least twice as many as usual. And remember that the AI loves placing its cities on top of hills, which makes its Archery units even tougher to beat.

I rarely use a GG unit as an attacking unit--a GG is just too valuable. I recommend using the GG for a super-medic (Medic I, II, and III) or settling him in a production city for additional XPs, which are hard to come by early in the game outside of actual combat.

 

[Derakon]

It's my personal experience that after the early rush, wars should be fought with siege. That means going for Construction to get catapults at the very least. No matter what bonuses a unit has, after it's been worn down by a big stack of siege it's not going to be an effective defender.

 

[tuore]

I started a new game, and it's going surprisingly well. It's now AD 940, and I've destroyed England (at the time it had only London), America (4 cities), Zulu (7 cities) and I'm now destroying Babylonia. There's Huayna Capac and Mao on the other continent. 2840 points.

 

[Sisiutil]

It's my personal experience that after the early rush, wars should be fought with siege. That means going for Construction to get catapults at the very least. No matter what bonuses a unit has, after it's been worn down by a big stack of siege it's not going to be an effective defender.

Maybe, maybe not. With the right combination of factors, you may be able to win a second war with your early rush veterans before you finish teching Construction for Catapults. Rome's Praetorians, in particular, usually have the muscle for a second heaping serving of kick-a**.

 

[Derakon]

Maybe, maybe not. With the right combination of factors, you may be able to win a second war with your early rush veterans before you finish teching Construction for Catapults. Rome's Praetorians, in particular, usually have the muscle for a second heaping serving of kick-a**.

Mm, true. The one time I played as Rome I took out all three civs on my continent with Praets. Granted that was on Noble, IIRC. Still, generally-speaking I find that the rush armies I'm building now (on Monarch) are capable of taking out 2-3 cities and then garrisoning them, and then I need to refocus on my economy because the maintenance costs are killing me.

...that game was pretty lopsided in all aspects, as I recall. Lategame, I captured some dinky little city on the last remaining continent, and then used it to rushbuy Modern Armor every turn.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Obviously you want to choose a relatively expensive tech rather than one you could easily research on your own; Astronomy will be a better choice than Banking, for example.

However, you have to consider the game situation as well. Astronomy is a popular Liberalism choice, but it may not always make sense. What if the AI researched it before you? Maybe you could acquire it through trade instead. What if you're playing a Pangaea map? Aside from allowing you to build Observatories, Astronomy's usefulness is much diminished on Pangaeas.

Nationalism is sometimes a better option, but usually only if you have a decent shot at building the Taj Mahal (i.e. you have marble) and if you're going to get some use out of running Nationalism (typically to do some drafting).

If you can determine that the AI leaders are not pursuing Liberalism too vigorously (espionage is useful for this), you may be able to research Liberalism within 1 turn of completion, then switch to other techs and come back to complete it when an even later, juicier tech is available. For example, maybe you can acquire Astronomy either through trade or by lightbulbing Great Scientists, then use Liberalism for Chemistry and build a fleet of marauding Privateers long before anyone else can build Frigates. Rifling is another attractive "late Liberalism gambit" choice.

Another consideration would be your UU and UB. If you're playing as France, using Liberalism for Gunpowder to enable Musketeers might be the best choice. For Russia, you might snag Military Tradition to enable Cossacks (though you'll need Rifling as well).

The point is, you don't want to play Civ based on a cookie-cutter approach that you use every game. One of the most enjoyable things about this game is that each time you play it, it's different, prompting you to make different choices. No two Civ games are exactly the same.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, you missed one. Liberalism-steel, eat someone bigger than you with cannons and drafted muskets. Sure, cannons and rifles are more reliable, but it's possibly the difference between fighting longbows and fighting grenadiers.

I'm no longer a huge fan of privateers, as they seem to only be effective when you have a huge tech lead, can build drydocks, and don't want to disrupt the diplomatic situation. Otherwise, you're better off building a stack of frigates, galleons, rifles and cannons, taking over an adjacent continent, and doubling your GNP. If you can get privateers to work, they can utterly cripple a civ, especially if they're a warmonger anyway and will happily divert thousands of hammers into fragile caravels instead of the infrastructure to get chemistry in a sane amount of time.

Hm, that raises another question. What tech should I pick when I get Oracle/Liberalism? I usually take the one that would take the most time, unless it's a poor tech.

I personally haven't built the oracle for several months of playing at Monarch, mainly because of a lack of nearby marble and too many other priorities. I do know that common targets are monarchy (if growth is capped by happiness) and code of laws (to rescue the economic crunch, and for a GP-shrined religion (again rescuing the economic crunch)). Metal Casting is also a great tech to Oracle, as it's expensive and getting Forges means you can potentially get infrastructure set up 50% faster (incredibly useful as more and more buildings get unlocked). These 3 are favourites as their pre-reqs are often available when Priesthood has been researched, though you may always want to consider things like Currency or Civil Service (alot harder!)

 

[Cultured]

Hi guys,

I've read a lot of people on these forums talk about the importance of technology trading (which is pretty obvious of course), but I find that the AI are hardly ever willing to trade at a 'fair' rate (measured by research beakers required for given techs), even when I'm on quite friendly terms with them. This is kind of frustrating as it's obvious that any rational leader trying to win the game would be very inclined to take a 'fair' two-way trade in the great majority of situations, but whatever, I suppose they aren't meant to represent other human players.

My question is, do you guys routinely take the worse side of a deal just to keep up in the technology race? And if so, how bad a deal will you take? Or is there something I'm missing?

(For clarity: I'm playing on Monarch level, on the original Civ IV i.e. no Warlords/BtS. Also I'm talking about techs that seem to have roughly equal strategic value, not trying to give someone Divine Right in 1850 or whatever.)

Thanks,

Cultured

 

[Sisiutil]

Cultured - welcome to CFC!

The AI will almost never, ever give you a "fair trade"--that is, a tech of equal research value for the one offered. The AI leaders are programmed to expect, no, demand a better deal than you're getting. It's just the way it is.

However, if you play your cards right diplomatically, you can sometimes get a free tech (usually the early, cheap ones) from civs that are Pleased or Friendly with you. Just ask; it's worth a shot. And, of course, you can often extort techs from weaker civs, or ones that you've been beating upon with your army for some time.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

The best thing to do is use one tech and trade it around like a kidnapped russian peasant, picking up lots of other juicy techs along the way. Read Sisuitil's Lincoln ALC, from a terrible position (century long war with a near runaway Monty, crippling AP unhappiness from that war, generations of techs behind) he managed to techwhore himself up to the modern era, digest Monty's former cities, and fly off into space.