"Fair" Civ IV? I think not.

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The big seller for me about Civ IV is that is was supposed to fix many of the classic problems with the older games. These problems include but are not limited to:
The AI Cheating
The Spearman vs. Tank scenario
Neither of these have been fixed IMO. My main pick is with the latter of the two: the combat engine is just plain broken. I have Macemen attacking archers and getting crushed, my Infantry attack a Swordsman, and the Sword takes no damage at all! Longbowmen somehow can defend against my Cavalry, too, when there ought to be no competition.
The other half of this rant is the barbarians. They are so overpowered, and they take so much advantage of the broken combat engine. I sent a squad of 8 (eight) archers against a barbarian city which contained three archers. My men fell like flies, they didnt do hardly any damage to these invincible barbarians. A few turns later, these same super barbs are knocking on my doorstep with macemen, while I have archers and warriors defending my cities( the best I can get)!
I hope someone can explain this quickly, my patience is growing thin, and your answer may just save the life of my CIV IV disk.
one more note, I play on Noble, since it seems to be the equivalent of Civ III's Regent, where the human and AI are 'equal,' no one has set advantages over the other (Ha!).

 

[naterator]

what exactly do you mean by ai cheating? that's a pretty broad statement to not elaborate. i believe you're wrong, too. i can't recall ever seeing an "ai is cheating" argument hold water. post an example and a save game and someone will probably be able to explain it.
and barbarian problems? stacks of archers on the march? maybe you should read some basic civ IV strategy articles and play with a better idea of what you're doing before you try noble. even 1 level down will make a big difference while you get the hang of it.

 

[Lars_Domus]

Again with the spearmen and the tanks!

First of all, these things can happen when you attack outdated units with state-of-the-art units that have taken damage. Make sure to check how your units are doing before sending them into battle.

Also check the combat odds. The terrain counts for a lot.

As for your barbarian city of invincible archers, archers are generally not a good offensive unit, but excellent defenders.. Try swordsmen (they have a natural bonus when attacking cities) or axemen instead. Be vary of what promotions you give your units, and what natural bonus they get.

If the barbarians have macemen while you're stuck with warriors and archers, you're obviously too slow with your research. Try going down a difficulty level or two until you get the hang of things. It's no shame in that, I had to do it too. (But don't tell anyone!) Civ IV requiers very different strategies than III.

Last, take a look at this handy beginner's guide: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165632
It's packed with good advice for succeeding on Noble.


And if you still don't feel inspired to try again, don't kill you disc - give it away or sell it, so someone else can enjoy it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well one important thing in Civ IV combat is the Extreme situation dependence

Remember Spearmen in Civ 1-3... Attack 1 defense 2, you wouldn't attack spearmen with spearmen and expect to win now would you, Civ IV is an awful lot like that

Attacking a City: this involves a number of complications
1. Fortification bonus... increases defense by +25% (and that +25% is more like a +50-60% in terms of actual combat outcome... because the Strength of a unit not only affects Chance to Hit, but also the amount of Damage Done... and decreases the opponent's Damage and chance to hit... in a Ratio)

2. City Culture/Walls...increase Defense by 20-100% Very Significant

3. Unit/Promotion Specific City Defense Bonuses... increase Defense within a City archers have a Base+50% and with city Garrison Promotions can move that up to as much as 125%

4. Unit/Promotion Specific Terrain Defense Bonuses... Hills or Forests/Jungle (only the former matters ina city) give some base defense plus more to specific units like Archers

5. Unit v. Unit bonuses




OK to help summarize... units to use for a Given Task..Single Player, MP is more complicated as your opponent may change from standard strategies

1. Take City
"City Attacker" with city Raider Promotions
+
"Siege" for Collateral Damage and Reducing City Defenses


2. Defend City
"City Defender"
Give City Garrison Promotions
[Axes+Crossbow are also useful for holding off Melee unit attacks in their time period.. in this case give them Shock Promotions]
[Spears, Pikes, Rifles can be useful if your city is being attacke with lots of Mounted units]
[Helicopters good for protecting against Heavy Tanks]


3. Defend Territory.. Here you rely on unit Counters, the basic rules are
"Mounted">"City Attacker"
"AntiMounted">"Mounted"
"City Attacker">"AntiMounted"

Most things beat a City Defender or that is out of a City, or Siege unit that is alone (however because of the Collateral Damage, a Siege unit is good for softening up a Stack)

"Mounted"
Chariot, Horse Archer, Knight, Cavalry, Gunship

"AntiMounted"
Spear, Pike, Rifleman, SAM Infantry, Mech Infantry

"City Attacker"
Axe, [Sword], Mace, Grenadier, [Infantry], Tank, Modern Armor
[Yes they have this role but they aren't really the best for it for some reason]
Best with either City Raider Promotions, Shock Promotions, or Pinch Promotions

"City Defender"
Archers, Longbow, Musket, Rifle, [Machine Gun], Infantry, Marine, Mech Infantry
Best with City Garrison Promotions

"Siege"
Catapults, Cannons, Artillery, Bombers, Stealth Bombers
either
Bombardment promotions for Collateral Damage
or
Accuracy for quicker takedown of city defenses
OR
City Raider to help them survive Doing Collateral Damage.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

When you have barbarian problems that need to be addressed, you go with the best unit you have, if that's archers, then so be it.

Cheating was in the older games. In Civ I i def remember cheating. For example, my Uncle had a program that allowed you to go in and change the game you were playing around. He had noticed that, when the AI decides you arent going to take a city, it just won't let you. So, he loaded this program, went into the city, and deleted all the units in there, and then loaded the game. He surrounded the city on every possible side with bombers, so no new units could get in. The next turn, sure enough, there were several units in that city, ready to defend!
In Civ II, the AI would be able to disobey the adjacent movement restrictions, among other things.
In Civ III, the AI could summon up huge amounts of money, and a much smaller civilization could keep pace technologically with one many times it's size.
We've all heard of the Spearman defeats tank scenario, I regard this as cheating.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

The most annoying AI cheating is the diplomacy.
"Gimme this, gimme that, join our crusade..."
Only do this to humans.
I want fair offers.
Why does the AI never try to bribe me into war instead of making outrageous demands ?
I "love" it when a leader who is annoyed all the time, never accepts a deal ,keeps harassing me for tribute (usually one of my most advanced techs no one else has), civics and religion and then even has the nerve to aks me if I'll join his war against my best friend...

 

[Chaos_BF1942]

For combat it can be all up to the RNG gods

But in your battle using archers vs archers. The numbers are not on your side, first it is attacking a city, and archers are natural defenders so have bonus, as well as Fortification bonus. You probably needed 10x as many archers to take out them.

We've all heard of the Spearman defeats tank scenario, I regard this as cheating.

I had won battles I shouldn't of won, I think I had a spearman (that I haven't upgrade) taking out an enemy AI Tank (it might of been a pikeman), is this cheating?

 

[Underdawg]

When you have barbarian problems that need to be addressed, you go with the best unit you have, if that's archers, then so be it.

Cheating was in the older games. In Civ I i def remember cheating. For example, my Uncle had a program that allowed you to go in and change the game you were playing around. He had noticed that, when the AI decides you arent going to take a city, it just won't let you. So, he loaded this program, went into the city, and deleted all the units in there, and then loaded the game. He surrounded the city on every possible side with bombers, so no new units could get in. The next turn, sure enough, there were several units in that city, ready to defend!
In Civ II, the AI would be able to disobey the adjacent movement restrictions, among other things.
In Civ III, the AI could summon up huge amounts of money, and a much smaller civilization could keep pace technologically with one many times it's size.
We've all heard of the Spearman defeats tank scenario, I regard this as cheating.

Again with the spearman defeats tank scenario!

And you attacked a barbarian city with 3 archers defending and you attacked with 8? Didn't you analyse the combat situation? The logistics?

And.... I don't really see the AI cheating in Civ IV other than that they get production and starting units bonuses on higher levels... which I don't consider cheating.

 

[naterator]

Cheating was in the older games. In Civ I i def remember cheating. For example, my Uncle had a program that allowed you to go in and change the game you were playing around. He had noticed that, when the AI decides you arent going to take a city, it just won't let you. So, he loaded this program, went into the city, and deleted all the units in there, and then loaded the game. He surrounded the city on every possible side with bombers, so no new units could get in. The next turn, sure enough, there were several units in that city, ready to defend!
In Civ II, the AI would be able to disobey the adjacent movement restrictions, among other things.
In Civ III, the AI could summon up huge amounts of money, and a much smaller civilization could keep pace technologically with one many times it's size.

ok, well, the first of the three things you complained about in civ IV was the ai cheating.
i can't defend the realism of the spearman vs tank, although a tank usually has to be pretty hurt to fall to a spearman. even then, it's very rare. besides, if your tank falls to a spearman, build two more, they should be able to raze the entire empire of anyone using spears. if gameplay balance is your concern, turn up the difficulty when your armored divisions meet aincient era melee units.
and a barbarian city with 3 archers isn't really a top priority. get an offensive unit and then take the city. in the meantime, post archers in the hills and let that city send free experience your way. an early barbarian city can be a godsend if you let it live long enough to give your axemen city raider promotions.

edit--goodsarmatian--yeah, that really is basically an AI cheat, and it drives me nuts, too. so good point.

and a very helpful tip that has been referenced in the above posts... if you press and hold the right mouse button and mouse over an enemy unit, it displays the combat odds in the lower left of the screeen, above the interface, just don't let go of the button if you don't want to attack.

 

[Mewtarthio]

We've all heard of the Spearman defeats tank scenario, I regard this as cheating.

Why? It's just as likely to happen to you. It'd only be cheating if the AI had an advantage.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

The AI doesn't cheat in combat, but I for one an getting pretty tired and fed up with even bothering with "diplomacy"...

Current game 12th Century /huge world, 9 of us on same continent I'm Mali, America and China are my religion (conf) and rest are mix of Budd, Jew, and Hindhu..

Even though English some way away, they are my best trading partners (though different religion) but China keep asking me to cancel deals..which is out of question, as I'm trading Wheat, Fish,Ivory and Clams, for Silver, Marble and Stone..(would you cancel that? no I thought not)

Then Alex and Monty decide to attack me, which isn't a problem, as I was planning to attack them...during which time China attack America (my 2nd best trading ptnr)..and of course noone will assist me at any price..but I still take most of Greece and make peace with Aztec..

In the meantime, China ask me for war help (for friks sake I'm fighting a solo war against 2 of the most aggressive lunatics in the game..and America and I are friendly, I wouldn't even be able to ask you if situations were reversed) and Khan starts popping up asking me to cancel deals with the English and Americans..which isn't happening

So to cut a long story short, my reps with Khan and China go down and down, until they both cancel open borders, and just a few turns after I make peace with Aztec and Greece, they both attack me...

Ok, I'm playing mid-high lvl, but virtually every game descends into this kind of situation eventually..and I'm sick of it.

With whatever good intentions, the diplo was designed, it just doesn't work as it is..because the AI never get negative modfiers with each other except from religion and the odd you declared war on our friend, the natural state of affairs is that eventually nearly every civ will hate you (sound familiar Civ III players?) This just encourages you to become large enough and powerful enough, not to have to really bother with diplomacy at all.

If I was an AI, China would most probably be at a friendly state with me (same religion open borders), and Khan would still be at worst cautious..that second war would never have happened, and the only way I was going to stop it once started was a quick few city razes which leads to, yes you've guessed it more negative modifiers.

Its tough enough playing lvls where the AI gets big starting and ongoing bonuses, but for them to be then constantly allowed to make requests which you cannot or will not acceed to, leading to an ever increasing spiral towards mutual hatred, has in my opinion just found another path to the familiar "you against the rest of the world" scenario familiar to players of earlier versions of civ..

All I ask, is an AI should not be allowed to ask the player for something it wouldn't demand of another AI civ, or conversely keep asking the player, but ask each other too...

It would make the game oh so much more interesting........

 

[dwarrior]

The most annoying AI cheating is the diplomacy.
"Gimme this, gimme that, join our crusade..."
Only do this to humans.
I want fair offers.
Why does the AI never try to bribe me into war instead of making outrageous demands ?
I "love" it when a leader who is annoyed all the time, never accepts a deal ,keeps harassing me for tribute (usually one of my most advanced techs no one else has), civics and religion and then even has the nerve to aks me if I'll join his war against my best friend...

i'll 2nd that.. use our religion! No use our civic! join us in war for free even tho you are already fighting 2 other nations or gave us a tech to fight them a couple turns ago! NO? ok we hate you! especially sucks when you trying to do a peaceful diety game. Would be nice to see an offer to join a war and a tech given as a bribe!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have a very similar situation in a Civ III game right now, with much inter-AI trading, that the rest of the world is a half to a whole age ahead of me! But appaarently, everything i have, although no one else has it, is totally worthless.

 

[wioneo]

I have never played on any difficult besides Noble, I lost my first two games, but I've been doing good since then. You said that you were attacked by barbarian MACEMEN! What year, exactly were you attacked with macemen? The barbs have never got maces before...They advance much slower than even the most pathetic AI civs, so I don't see how you could even still be alive by the time barbarian macemen showed up. For the archer thing, if you drag with the right mouse button over an enemy it shows the combat odds against your selected unit. It also shows what bonuses are applied. Archers should never be used in an attack. Promoted warriors would be better. Archers usually have the city garrison promotion, and fortify in a city. That is probably why your stack of archers was killed.

 

[CHRISROOM]

How many times do I have to say this? The battle mechanic is a percentage of chance. And the "AI cheating", examine the tech tree and what units need what requirements. To get a strong military, research the military technologies. To get a spreading religion, research the religion technologies, and etc.

Civ IV is a stratagy game. Choose this or that wisely, and you will become awesome.

 

[taipei_lad]

My 3 cents (adjusted for inflation):

I've not seen any AI 'cheating' per se, but there does seem to be a built-in anti-human bais at times, in regards to Barbarians.

An example, with a crude diagram:

A B C
D E F
G H I

OK, I move my exploring Warrior into square E, a Forested Hil,l from Square I, revealing a) C Chinese Scout in Square B (plains), b) A Barbarian Bear in Square A (forest of some kind - I forget), c) A French Scout in Square D (plains again).

For the Barb, three targets are equidistant. Two are virtually defenceless scouts caught in the open. One is stronger and on defensible terrain.

Can you guess who got attacked? Yep. Me. And I died.

However, this bias sort of makes up for the fact that humans can out-think the AI easily. Kind of annoying when it happens over and over though.

C'est la vie. Or is that 'Civ's la vie'

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I have seen this anti-humans sentiment as well, to the point that a hilled maceman is more prime a target than a AI worker in a square adjacent to the barb

 

[wioneo]

But then again, the worker or scouts could escape. Or was this after they moved? because the AI's turns are after yours. I would assume that barbarians are after the other AI's. So the scouts would have time to escape. However, I believe that the AI should be given some mechanical advantages. You are smarter than the computer, aren't you?

 

[Howitzah]

This would be the common response.

If you're fighting spears/bows etc with Tanks, you need to up the difficulty.

 

[taipei_lad]

But then again, the worker or scouts could escape. Or was this after they moved? because the AI's turns are after yours. I would assume that barbarians are after the other AI's. So the scouts would have time to escape.

On your first point: Never thought of that I guess. Don't know where the Barbs fit into the turn register. However, I don't often see the AI retreat from them, either.

However, I believe that the AI should be given some mechanical advantages. You are smarter than the computer, aren't you?

Second point: This is what meant by saying that the anit-human bias is not a big problem, because we can out-think the AI.

For me, it's not a huge deal, just annoying at times (I have horrific luck with Barbs).