I will never be as good as you at Civ 4.

[Nevordan]

Do you really think I should get Beyond the Sword now? Hm. Currently I think I'm still in my infant stages of learning. On a scale of 1 to 10 I'd maybe be a 2.25. I think I manage to get the "early rush" to work in 2 out of 5 games, depending on how far away my neighbors are and if they choose to build walls or cities on hills (and they do if they're Protective). If I can't get the early rush to work, I am pretty much screwed. I think I am now stuck in "aggressive" mode, as I can't really see myself winning unless I kill or wound my neighbors enough so that they can never hurt me back. And I haven't been having much luck in the past few days, either, which is why I haven't posted much. Do you think getting Beyond the Sword would just aggravate me to the point of giving up on Civ?

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Just a word of encouragement:

Hmmm you shouldn't beat yourself up so much!!! You seem to have an incredible appetite for learning (at least when it comes to this game ) and that is most certainly a commendable attribute. Combine that with your persistence (how many times did you think u'd crush the disc? ^.^) and you have the makings of an all star civver!

Best of luck

 

[Nevordan]

The only thing that's kept the game from an untimely demise is my woman's newfound love for Civ 4. I don't know what my problem is or where it came from, but I am too quick to anger these days. So far I've lost er... two games at least. Vice City, which I replaced and beat a week later (long time ago), and Spider-Man 2 for the PS2 when I was nagged for playing it too much, I decided it was best to just get rid of it so I wasn't tempted again. Ah well... and I don't think I'm going to get any better at Civ. This may be as good as I can be, because I have read everything (everything) and incorporated it into my games as best I can, and it isn't good enough. The one thing lacking that I need is actual intelligence, and that isn't something I can improve without a brain transplant.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I think I manage to get the "early rush" to work in 2 out of 5 games, depending on how far away my neighbors are and if they choose to build walls or cities on hills (and they do if they're Protective). If I can't get the early rush to work, I am pretty much screwed.

In BtS it rarely makes sense, IMO to "early rush" because the AIs don't REX like they do in Warlords. In fact, in BtS it makes much more sense to REX, yourself, and then protect and support all the cities with a careful balance of military and economic power.

In Warlords, IMO, it *SOMETIMES* makes sense to early rush, but not always. As you said, it depends on the situation. If they've REXed over most of the "goodies", the luxury resources, the gold, even some needed military resources, and they're crowding their cities close to your capitol, it's a no-brainer, rush early and often. Axemen, Axemen, and more Axemen, and ignore everything else until you get you some GROUND to pound a little later on. But sometimes even in Warlords they leave you an opening to peacefully grab the better-quality land, especially if it's one of those slow-expanding AIs that prefer to build something useless like Stonehenge before they even get their second city built. In that scenario, you need to balance the axemen with settlers, and REX into the land yourself, and then get some workers to cottage up the commerce cities (sorry SE fanatics, cover your eyes here), just to get enough gold coming in to support the maintenance of all those cities. A beeline to Code of Laws and Currency helps with that support as well. In that scenario, you still do have at least one city building all-units, all the time, but that's just to prop up DEFENSES. Against barbarians, and AIs that are Aggressive like Alexander. Especially Alexander because in my experience his trigger for an early rush is the thinnest I've seen, even thinner than Monty's. "You have furs and I don't, WAR time!!!" Or so I imagine him saying...

I think I am now stuck in "aggressive" mode, as I can't really see myself winning unless I kill or wound my neighbors enough so that they can never hurt me back. And I haven't been having much luck in the past few days, either, which is why I haven't posted much. Do you think getting Beyond the Sword would just aggravate me to the point of giving up on Civ?

Well, I think BtS requires a balance of aggression with adept domestic management and foreign diplomacy. Warlords does tip the balance a *little* bit in favor of the aggressive approach, moreso than BtS, so if you think aggression is the only aspect of the game you're skilled at, then you might want to stick with Warlords a while longer.

Plus there are some changes in BtS that I absolutely detest, hate with a passion, and... then hate some more. You will come to seethe with rage when you get prompted to vote for a leader of the Apostolic Palace, for example. Prepare your blood vessels to resist bursting, trust me. The U.N. in Warlords is absolutely toothless and meaningless compared to this one: they can command you to stop a war against one of the members, for example, and if you defy the verdict you get a -5 unhappy hit in all cities with that religion, for what *seems* like... forever. (Prolly 10 turns, but it's 10 turns of HELL!) What that means is that war just slows to a crawl, and if you're LUCKY you get one city taken before an Apostolic member appeals to the Pope for a peace treaty... again.

Also, in BtS, siege engines suck. They really do. It now takes forever to bombard city walls, and while defenders can eliminate your catapults, your catapults can only *partially* damage defenders. Sure that may make defense easier when an AI invades, such that only an idiot really would lose a city in BtS if he reacts in time with enough Longbowmen and such, but... the price to pay for it is sky high when on offense.

All in all, wars in BtS tend to stagnate more, and get nowhere fast, for either side. This is what Firaxis calls "balance". ::spits::

But, on the flipside, some of the new concepts of BtS have grown on me: Moai Statues can make a mostly-water-tile city become nice and productive with a +1 hammer per water tile bonus, and makes said city a really good candidate for a second military city, which means on Continents you can consider putting West Point in a high-hammers landlocked city, and just settle some GGs and build a generic military academy in the Moai city, for your "Anapolis", your naval center. And later on you can use Red Cross as your second National Wonder there, such that all ships get build with Medic 1, which really comes in handy when worn down with damage in foreign waters: pop into a discreete icy bay, heal the damage, and back into the enemy waters to destroy ships, etc.

Another one I like is the Levee building, river tiles +1 hammer... a few tweaks like that here and there add just enough "sugar" to BtS to make me lean against going back to Warlords. Just enough... barely.

Anyway, if the aggression approach seems to be a problem for you (and you say it only works for you 2 out of 5 times?) then maybe the rules under BtS might help your game results, rather than hinder. IMO.

 

[Skallagrimson]

The one thing lacking that I need is actual intelligence, and that isn't something I can improve without a brain transplant.

No, it's not "intelligence". There is a special "knack" for Civ which becomes different with every version due to the different rules and balancing factors that come into play. I'd gotten to where I had the "knack" for Civ2, and when Civ3 came out, no way in hell would I abandon my comfort zone in 2 and make the leap to 3 (and I actually liked the graphics and interface better in 2 anyway). I made the leap with vanilla 4, and regretted it at first, because the rules were waaaaaaaaaaaaaay different. It required re-learning Civ all over again. Then Warlords: a new "knack". Then BtS, still yet another new "knack". Civ5 will probably incorporate a new one as well.

In analysis, I think a major component to any Civ "knack" is to not merely know WHAT the rules are, but to have an instinctive feel for how the various shades and innuendo of each of the rules can provide some synergy, and some extra boosts here and there to a larger strategy. IMO what that requires is experience of play more than reading the adamant "always" and "never" commandments in the "strategy guides" you see on the forums here. "Never build archers" for example: well archers don't have any naturally advantaged opponent, and if you rely on axemen and they rely on chariots, guess what: YOU'RE SCREWED. So one archer-type unit can in fact be a healthy addition to any city defense array in the early game, especially if you're a "Protective" leader and they get the extra CG1 and Drill bonuses. In any case, once I've supplemented my axemen with spearmen (against chariots) and chariots (against other axemen), even in non-Protective leader games I often decide to throw in an archer unit, just as some backup to the main defensive stack. I've seen archers beat axemen on defense, in fact, more often than see the axemen win--at least when they're my archers defensing my cities.

So in the "always and never" strategy guides, there's a certain set of caveats and grains of salt to take with the hard rules, and it takes experience to know when the rules don't apply, or when to pick which one of a conflicting pair of "rules". I guess what it really takes is the ability to warehouse a lot of "if-then-else" algorithms in your mind, with some extra juice in the form of intuition, and the biological advantages we life-forms have over machines for reading into situations, and when you "just know" that a certain approach would be the best alternative.

In fact "always and never" is ultimately why the machine loses to a reasonably experience human, every time.

 

[dalamb]

This may be as good as I can be, because I have read everything (everything) and incorporated it into my games as best I can, and it isn't good enough.

Sometimes things just take practice -- incorporating them into your game for a few plays in a row might not be enough. I know I'm not playing enough to improve very fast, for example.

 

[cabert]

dalamb has it totally right.
If you don't play enough, you lose focus on things.
If you play too much, you're tired and let things happen instead of checking every you need to every turn.

I know I need to play 3 or 4 games on a given level in short order to get the hang of it. If I change levels, maps, scenarios too often, I get lost.

I've been playing a lot of FfH 2, and switching between vanilla, warlords, BtS.
I got everything confused, and started settling on deserts thinking I could certainly use a spring spell to adapt the terrain to my will .
Suddenly, monarch was a challenge again .

 

[Terrance888]

I thought about the pros of a rush and I proposed a 25% fort bonus in here.

ARCHER (3*25+50+20=5.8?)V.S Regular Axmen.5 is a small bonus for him(in a 20% city of a early rush) 4.4(they auto start with combat 1!) for Quecha, 4 for Dog, 5.5 for Imortal
If you wait for swords
ARCHAR (3*25+50+40-10=6.15) V.s 6 still more! well... if you wait for Cats
ARCHAR (3*25+50+50-10 is 115% or 6.45) v.s a Sword stac with a Cat(they usually have a wall by now)(an you can use sacrifice cats(stares at oppertinaly))

All it means is to grab them fast'n furious! Before they reach 20%... beware!

 

[cabert]

Charles Li, 20% is what you get with your first border pop.
The capital gets 2 culture per turn to start with.
So the first border pop is after 5 turns at normal speed. I don't see what kind of fast and furious rush you can bring in 5 turns.

 

[Skallagrimson]

I usually haven't met the first AI in 5 turns.

 

[Terrance888]

I mean the regular 1500b.c ouposts rush!

 

[dalamb]

Is it just me, or are Charles Li's posts hard to understand for others too?

 

[cabert]

I mean the regular 1500b.c ouposts rush!

what it is worth to rush for outposts?
I rush the capital or I don't rush.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I don't know if Tokugowa is next door I rush his border city, he's protective and aggressive, he will be a problem later on, so if I take his 2nd city and kill the settler he sends out soon afterwards that's him finished until I can tech to construction and finish him off.

EDIT: I stop the war as sson as I get alphabet and take a tech as well.

 

[cabert]

I don't know if Tokugowa is next door I rush his border city, he's protective and aggressive, he will be a problem later on, so if I take his 2nd city and kill the settler he sends out soon afterwards that's him finished until I can tech to construction and finish him off.

EDIT: I stop the war as sson as I get alphabet and take a tech as well.

from tokugawa? I don't think so .

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Hmm maybe not, he seems a bit more willing to trade when he wants you to stop killing his settlers though I think. It was a long time ago!

Anyway, my point was it's not always necessary to go straight for the capital (protective on a hill say), just cripple the AI a bit especially if they are going to be a threat later on, then go and check how they are doing a bit later on with your catapults.

 

[Skallagrimson]

To me, REX *is* a rush. I got all the sweet land, and they get a few tundra, desert, and resource-weak jungle tiles. Will they ever catch up? Nope.

When can I finish them off? When I'm good and ready.

 

[Terrance888]

I like he Dikes of the Dutch better than Mori Statues. Sure, you get ulture and Sure, You get GGp and Sure, it is both early and inexplasive but then.... think of a city with Mori and a Dike....

 

[ParadigmShifter]

In a recent MORI poll 9 out of 10 people preferred "he dikes of the Dutch" to statues. "They are a bit more explasive, but hey" one said. "Who needs ulture?" said another.

I'm still waiting for the Charles Li walkthrough game though... what a tread that would be.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

In a recent MORI poll 9 out of 10 people preferred "he dikes of the Dutch" to statues. "They are a bit more explasive, but hey" one said. "Who needs ulture?" said another.

I'm still waiting for the Charles Li walkthrough game though... what a tread that would be.

ROFL ROFL ROFL