I Hate Warmongers!

[DarkFyre99]

A warmongering noble walk-through is something even I could make, hehe.

I'll check when I get home, see if there's interest.

Having read this, it's something I'm tempted to try. But it'll be at the level I'm comfortable at, prince. Given that I've got a builder personality type (my preferred win is the spaceship) it'll be an interesting exercise.

The game begins here

 

[Honkoid]

Really? I didn't know that. That would explain a lot. A whole lot. [..]

Ah, finally you found what you were looking for. Affirmation, that the fault is not yours.

 

[Zack]

There is a big jump of difficulty between the Warlord and Settler difficulty that I just cannot grasp. When I gather an army, my ecomony suffers, and I ended up falling too far behind in tech to keep up, and eventually DOWed on for having an obsolete military. When I start to focus on commerce and science, I get DOWed on for not having enough military. Either way, you lose.

I think you need to find a new game to play.

 

[PreLynMax]

I think you need to find a new game to play.

 

[Kesshi]

my 10 years old daughter wins on settler, and she basically knows nothing of the game, not even the victory conditions

cabert,

I don't presume to be telling you don't know your children, so let me try to say this with as much respect as possible: You'd be surprised that which a 10 year old can precieve. I started playing Civilization 1 shortly after its release. I was 11 or 12 years old at the time. It only took me a few months to work my way up to Emperor.* Of course this was a different game for a different time which could be beaten with virutally one mathematical formulia, but my point stands. I believe your daughter has a better grasp of the game than you realize. And quite honestly, that's a great thing! Many "educational" video games have shown me the door to all sorts of interesting parts of the world, mostly science and history for me. I still needed to open that door, but the books served as a pointer to the door.

*Even when I was playing MUDs, FPSes, RTSes, Flight Simulators, MMOs, etc., I still played Civ 1 and Civ 2 on occasion. That is, up until I bought Civ 4. I've been playing Civ games for virtually 2 decades now. I imagine there are others on these forums with similar stories as well.

I don't pretend to be an expert on parenting, and I may be overstepping my bounds here, but if you're not already doing this I highly suggest that you get involved in the parts of the game she likes the most (Combat, Civics, Does she have a favourite Civilization?) and use that as a foundation to educate her (and possible yourself) in that area. I'm not saying that if she tends to enjoy Universal Suffrage that you should train her to be a politican, but more along the lines that you should teach her what it means. I know how difficult it can be to teach children new information, as I was only recently that child. But if she already shows an interest something, it could help you out in furthering her education.

Perhaps I am being too presumptious here, and I'm sorry if I am. I attribute the fact that I didn't fail my high school junior US History class on the fact that I played a World War 2 Flight Simulator in the years prior. This perked my interest in WW2 and I researched a lot of information on my own. If my parents or friends had wanted to learn about the same subject with me, I'd gladly have welcomed them in with open arms, and probably have learned a lot more at the same time.

Wow, I'm way off track here. I think I'll just stop here before I get into trouble telling you how to raise your child.

 

[cabert]

Kesshi, I appreciate your thoughts although totally off topic and missing the target by miles .
For the record, she plays mostly (and that's not very often) FfH for the funny beasts and the fantasy feel.

 

[Zack]

You think its funny that you're horrible?

 

[Cashew]

Really? I didn't know that. That would explain a lot. A whole lot.
And this is why both times (this making the second time I played this map) everytime I ask Pacal to DOW Alex, he's ALWAYS friendly with him. It's so aggravating. But your explination explains a lot.

Edit: I did go warmonging with Ghangis Khan one game, but it was on Settler, so after conquering most of the continent, I got bored. There is a big jump of difficulty between the Warlord and Settler difficulty that I just cannot grasp. When I gather an army, my ecomony suffers, and I ended up falling too far behind in tech to keep up, and eventually DOWed on for having an obsolete military. When I start to focus on commerce and science, I get DOWed on for not having enough military. Either way, you lose.

I am preparing a walkthrough that further proves my wrath, but I still need time.

You're preparing a walk-through that proves you can't beat the game on warlord difficulty? What?

Isn't the purpose of a walk-through to show how you CAN win?

 

[Zack]

Cashew, I don't think you understand. He is looking for a new place to whine and complain, duh!! He can't beat a game on Warlord difficulty Maybe if he would listen to advice he could actually win on Warlord

 

[Skallagrimson]

Don't make him go away. I want to continue to not feel so bad about those times I get pwned on Monarch.

 

[cabert]

I guess he never played civ 1, civ 2 or civ 3.
+ he wants to win without effort.

I have good advice for this situation : Worldbuilder can let you get a few free techs, a few (or a lot) free units, a pile of gold...
You don't even need cheatcodes.

 

[Zack]

Pre Lyn Max, take a lookie here, its quite helpful:

EDIT: Took out the strat guide, as I needed to post it somewhere else.

 

[Cashew]

Forward him to an attacko guide instead.

 

[Zack]

Prelynmax, this should help you beat Warlord difficulty:

Using the theory of catastrophism coupled with the butterfly effect the idea is constant conflict- one thing slamming into another thing and this affecting everything everywhere else geared at disrupting enemy unit coordination while maximizeing yours - movement. A message that informs you of a disaster (catastrophism) is a signal to attack. If these messages are too few then one must create a catastrophic event- stealing an opponents entire work force and pillaging every resource in one turn is about as close to nukes (optimal) as you can get

Following the natural progression of conflict and expansion it is easier if one selects an aggressive civ. The key is movement coupled with brute force to reduce the enemy's angle of defense. (Atecs, Celts are two top examples)
Build every city on a hill. If you see a blue circle suggesting a better spot ignore it. The computer is forced to calculate and display that circle. Only build cottages on hills. Attack early, and raze all enemy cities especially if they have wonders to prove you are ruthless and don't need their greedy non military making hammered building. Then settle on a nearby hill and convert any cottages to farms unless they are on a hill.

Have open borders to look at everyone's cities and have a stack of mercenary uu's you can gift to a weak civ under attack at the moment of declaration. Attack multiple civs on multiple fronts in rapid succession and have a trireme navy of death. There should never be a moment of non-movement geared towards conflict and expansion. If building -espionage- and up the bar and spy all over the place like demons sabotaging and stealing techs and taking gold, every mission that is currently available. then pretend your an at peace civ and raze the U.N. -with a sneak attack to ensure that the Manhatten Project - the best Project in the game gets built by you. Sabotage and nuke anyone close to any kind of victory and plan a huge invasion that is secretly doomed anyway so if it fails you don't care because it was actually a defensive invasion (or defensive movement)

Select Guerilla or Woodsman or any movement promotions as with Triremes and any other attack naval units. Horse/Sword, Rifleman, Paratroopers are the best by test - in stacks with a spy on attack. No lumbering siege. If your army is bogged down your navy (airforce) should be attacking and if your at Privateers they should be all over the place, luring, pillaging, and blockading.
If there is one turn without an aggressive , expansive move then you have failed and deserve to die. Great Generals should always be attached to a unit and should always lead any attack even against poor odds. you get more anyway so what does it matter and it makes the computer calculate and use memory to put up a sentence saying he died.

The tech path and trade should be anything military related. Religion should be skipped - go for the Shwedagon Paya (free religion) and Statue of Zeus at the expense of all other early wonders. If you fail and someone else gets them then capture that city and raze it forcing the computer to calculate the loss of a wonder. If you make it to the late game try to get to Facism and Flight and compose your entire army of Paratroopers and upgrade old units to SAM's. Nukes, cruise missles and fighters/bombers fill in the gaps for offensive/defensive maneuvers. Your navy should consist soley of subs (cruise and tactical missles) attack subs and transports.

 

[Zack]

Prelynmax, why did you lie on your profile?

It says Civ 4 difficulty: Immortal. Yeah right!!!

 

[BakingTheArt]

Seriously, people. You need to stop trolling this guy. Just because he's bad at the game doesn't mean he can't get better. Hell, I used to have trouble at Warlord difficulty. Everyone did (Well, if they started with Civ 4 and aren't a civ III veteran). I'd try to help a bit, but all I can say is that the axes are more than enough to fend off an invasion made of mostly melee units. You aren't woefully behind, you're ahead of Alex in power. Just send a bunch of axes over to meat his stack o' doom.

 

[DaveMurray]

Seriously, people. You need to stop trolling this guy. Just because he's bad at the game doesn't mean he can't get better. Hell, I used to have trouble at Warlord difficulty. Everyone did (Well, if they started with Civ 4 and aren't a civ III veteran). I'd try to help a bit, but all I can say is that the axes are more than enough to fend off an invasion made of mostly melee units. You aren't woefully behind, you're ahead of Alex in power. Just send a bunch of axes over to meat his stack o' doom.

It's not that he's bad, it's that he blatantly ignores advice given to him and prefers to false truths which support his position. People like that are asking to get trolled. And this trolling isn't even that bad. If you want to see bad trolling, go to a World of Warcraft forum.

 

[BakingTheArt]

Yeah, I know that. But still, people should try to help him, hoping something might get through, not say stuff like, "I think you need to find a new game to play. " That's just something that makes their people who post it feel better about themselves, and the person here less likely to take in advice.

Not to mention you could get b7'd for it. >_<

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just because he's bad at the game doesn't mean he can't get better.

That's a point most of us have emphatically expressed. However, it seems his will died on him or something. It is frustrating - damned frustrating - to watch someone completely fold in the improvement attempt, and yet for some reason keep playing despite wanting to succeed. This guy's ignorance to the wealth of advice the community is attempting to provide him is borderline legendary. I seem to remember a thread way back when that involved a mod (with hemp), and the insistence that early walls were absolutely necessary, and that such was immortal level play. Now, we have the same person back months later throwing up claims that he HAS to have seen as false in the meantime (since there was only about 100+ games posted on the forums at higher levels than warlord since then), so much that people started a thread to help him out. STILL the community is ignored, with the same flagrant falsehoods posted over and over again.

This is not the pattern of a player, regardless of who that player is, making a genuine effort to improve at the game or contribute to civfanatics. It's more indicative of a creature who lives under a bridge. Generally, when a person who struggles comes here, the vast majority of the community converges to help them. In this case, we're not being proven wrong, agreed with, or asked for more specific input. We're being ignored outright, as if "I hate warmongers" were a blog on myspace.

Between this thread and the walkthrough started in its response, and the war academy, the OP has more than enough to get started on improvement. I suggest, if he is truly serious about this game (even just peacemongering), that he post a game with GRADUAL steps, screenshots, and asking for input, if these pointers are too hard to conceptualize. Otherwise, I understand everyone else's (arguably) kind sentiments and would argue that THEY are not the ones trolling here...

 

[Skallagrimson]

Sometimes the conventional wisdom is questionable though. I see time and time again people saying "chop everything everywhere no matter what", and whenever I experiment with that I needlessly cripple my Iron Works city and the NF wonder is nerfed, and all the other cities are kept at below 13 in growth when 4 trees could boost them to 15 for greater industrial-era horsepower per-city. It's simple raw experience that taught me to ignore that advice and leave more trees where it made sense to do so (IW and NF) and continue to clearcut where it made sense (border cities, coasts) and "leave a few" in most other places (for growth).

Point being I wouldn't take "what everyone says" as religious dogma, but any piece of advice deserves at least a few trial games to see if it's worthy.