Could we BUY new ministers-specialists would do the players job automatically?

Mitsarakos

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
21
- Why not having the possibility to buy ministers of our choice, who whould lighten our job in the game? For example, if one wants to play agressively, he could buy a good financial minister who whould work with such things and bildings, while the player whould be free to choice the production and administration of certain cities and not to have to work with his entire land - civ
 
@quintus5: yes.
@Both of you: Civ 3 had something like that called the "City Governor" I think, I always turned it off.
 
In Civ 4? If so I never noticed. (I hate AI automation on major things (like building things in cities))
 
The governors are usually there for tile working as well.
 
I would be quite surprised if V didn't include some form of governor, I would also be shocked if it could hold a candle to the average visitor to this site.
 
Considering Noble difficulty/equivalent factors to the AI competition may be right around or above the "average visistor's" level I'm not so sure, as Governors are essentially just another AI.

But I always felt that newer/lower levels are where players want to spend the most time doing stuff, and such a system would never be able to MM effectively for players who would want it do so intelligently and at a high level. In short, I'm sure ciV will have governors like previous versions anyway but they won't be more intelligent than the AI.
 
In Civ 4? If so I never noticed. (I hate AI automation on major things (like building things in cities))
Now you make me doubt... I do not have the game at hand, but I am fairly sure that you can automate everything in a city, even what it builds. And on a sidenote, once you have that many cities that you stop caring what city numbers 12 to 25 do, you can always have them build wealth in order to keep research up. That way no city will ever bother you again, and when you reach this stage of the game it is always uncertain if any improvement will still be worth it as the number of turns until victory might make it so that any improvement - even the granary - might be redundant.
 
you can always have them build wealth in order to keep research up.

What i found silly in Civ4 was that feature came (relatively) late in the game... it happened many times that i didn't want to build anything before Alphabet (that i never research early by the way), so i had to build a random unit (say a horse archer) and disband it. More, having science/gold/culture/whatever build from the start would be a good strategic choice. And with good hammers/gold/whatever relations, like 1:1.
 
Wow, so you just throw hammers out of the window like that? :wow: Getting alphabet early would really be beneficial to your game then, trust me. Also you can build workers and settlers rather than a unit that you will only disband. If you can build a unit like a HA and have no room left for expansion even early in the game when you do not even have alpha yet, I would assume that expansion by the sword is in order...
 
Wow, so you just throw hammers out of the window like that? :wow: Getting alphabet early would really be beneficial to your game then, trust me.

Well probably, but i'm always annoyed to have to research it. I never do it, so when i encounter a situation when i would have need it, i'm always short.

Also you can build workers and settlers rather than a unit that you will only disband. If you can build a unit like a HA and have no room left for expansion even early in the game when you do not even have alpha yet, I would assume that expansion by the sword is in order...

No, in some cases i raelly can't afford more units, or i wouldn't disband the HA... ;)

Well anyway Civ4 sucks, i don't play it anymore or just on Noble difficulty when i have too much time.
 
Well probably, but i'm always annoyed to have to research it. I never do it, so when i encounter a situation when i would have need it, i'm always short.



No, in some cases i raelly can't afford more units, or i wouldn't disband the HA... ;)

Well anyway Civ4 sucks, i don't play it anymore or just on Noble difficulty when i have too much time.

I always play in Prince difficulty, but I rarelly win. Its extremely difficult in this level. Can anyone win at higher levels?
 
Is tech-trading the key to win at higher levels? The AI researches much faster

I guess tech trading is one of the keys to win Emperor and above games. But i always disable tech trading.

One thing you can rely on too, is diplomatic/cultural victories, that can be achieevd with a good understanding of AI reactions. I always disable diplomacy and cultural victories. ;)
 
Is tech-trading the key to win at higher levels? The AI researches much faster

Yes, at least it is an important part. For higher level (especially on immortal/deity) you cannot rely on staying ahead on your own power. Your handicap is just to large. You need to accept that you will be lagging behind for most of the early era's and find a way to catch up. One way to that is obtaining a monopoly tech (likely through use of a great person or beelining) and trading it around.
 
Is tech-trading the key to win at higher levels? The AI researches much faster
You need to trade techs to keep up, that is for sure. But there is waaaay more to it. You need to be able to read a diplomatic situation well, you need to know how you should handle your diplomacy and when you can safevly accept or decline demands, when you need to go to war and how to prepare them efficiently, how to manage your workers, etc.

Every difficulty can be won, that is for sure. If you want to know how to beat deity, check the DR series by kossin. The series can be found in the Civ4 strategy part of this forum. Kossin beats deity pretty much every time and makes it look easy.
 
Back
Top Bottom