IGN's Beyond The Sword Guide

[xfactor99]

After amusedly perusing this for half an hour, I can say I appreciate this forum a whole lot more. Here's a great example:

Creative is the single-most powerful attribute, as it allows cities to expand their borders without any upgrades, which leads to research, which leads to powerful units, which leads to a military blitz like you've never seen. Throw in the fact that you can change religions and civic policies on a whim, and Egypt becomes ridiculously powerful toward the end. I love Hatshepsut... definitely my choice for matches when I want an assured victory.

But then! Later down on the page:

Still, Pericles (and the Greeks) is one of the weaker leaders in the game, and will be outclassed by a specialist nation that knows what it's doing.

Yes, he's got nothing on that guy named Pericles. I hear he's a fine choice for a specialist economy. Oh wait...

 

[Elros]

I don't think they actually mean a specialist economy when they say specialist nation, more one that's focused.

It strikes me as a bit odd that they're plugging Hattie as a military leader and saying Brennus sucks as one, when the main difference is that Brennus has a more aggressively minded trait and UB?

 

[AlessioCerci]

The IGN guide for Warlords is equally bad (http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/818084/)
This is just awful advice:
"The Incans and Zulus are the weakest two civilizations in the game, and because of Huayna Capac's attributes, the Incans are easily the worse of the two. Although the combination theoretically gives the Incans a good economy, they won't be able to take enough land to suck in the resources and churn out enough money to offset their weaknesses. In other words, they suck, and no amount of gold they make will change that. If you're going for a handicap match, have the better player pick the Incans to even things out."

ROFL

 

[Sullla]

Wow, thanks for that link. I needed a laugh this morning! The "sample game" was rather poorly played; the reviewer was clearly trying, but just did not understand how to play out a strong start. IGN would have done better just to link to the Walkthrough that I wrote when Civ4 came out.

 

[Virulent]

It's kind of interesting as IGN had the best preview coverage of BtS out of all the major sites. I guess they are good at covering the game but suck at playing it.

 

[Psyringe]

Yeah, there's a lot of wrong or at least misleading information in that guide. Which I actually don't blame the author for, because let's face it, Civ4:BtS is a very complex game, and writing a strategy guide for it isn't easy.

However, the problem with this guide is that IGN apparently tries to pass it off as a well-founded, extensive guide, which it clearly isn't. It's a work in progress at best (at least I *hope* that this is not the final version). Among the factual errors and the good advice (that *is* there as well), the guide has lots and lots of "filler" sentences - statements like those you'd use in an exam you haven't really learned for. Statements that are close enough on topic to make it seem you know what you're talking about, but that don't hold much actual information when you look closely at them. The problem with such statements is that they don't really help someone who wants to play the game. I wonder how much work actually went into making this guide a good one, and how much went into making the guide just *seem* like a good one instead.

As I said, I won't condemn anyone for errors and misleading info in a Civ4 guide. Civ4 is a complex game, and nobody's perfect. But passing a mediocre piece of work off as a good one ticks me off - especially when it's used as an incentive for a site membership which costs money.

 

[MrCynical]

I have to agree with Psyringe on this one. While there are some decent pieces of information there, there's far more that are either wrong (a lot of the stuff on leaders, civs and civics is particularly bad), or so vague as to be near useless. Much of it is on the level of "this civ has the expansive trait - therefore it must be good at expanding".

The leaders part of the guide in particular strongly looks as if someone has read the manual and the civlopedia, but hasn't actually played the game with most of the traits. A lot of the commetns are based on vague notions of what the traits sound like, not what they specifically do. Then you get on to the points that are plain laughable, like when he recommends Serfdom over Slavery.

Amusing though it is (particularly when the writer manages to lose in truly abysmal fashion in the sample game), I could write a guide a quarter of the length with 20 times the useful content.

 

[Mewtarthio]

I love that description of the 'Terra' map:

Terra: That reminds me: wasn't Final Fantasy VI the greatest game ever? Yeah, I know, I'm the only one who thinks so... Anyway, this map type creates maps that are similar to our real planet. You'll have several continents, but they'll be smaller than the ones in the Continents map type; think of this as a compromise between the Continents and Archipelago types. Pretty good for beginners, but better for intermediate players.

It's like based all his map type summaries on that little globe that spins on the map select screen and the map descriptions. I'm not saying that I think he should spend all year becoming intimately familiar with all the map types (particularly since this guide was clearly meant to be rushed out shortly after the game), but you'd think he'd at least look at the forums.

 

[AlessioCerci]

Ah but (most of) the guide is not rushed. If you take a look at the warlords guide, you'll realise that the guide for BTS is just the old one with a few BTS features added. The description of the terra map you cited is in both guides and SHOULD have been changed in the year that warlords has been out.
So the fact that none/little of the original guide has been changed in a year would suggest IGN/the author think it is good. I feel sorry for anyone who's read it and think it is useful

 

[Mewtarthio]

Hang on, this is just a Warlords guide! There's no mention of Espionage, he still thinks Scotland Yard produces Spies...

Okay, I normally like to give people the benefit of the doubt (Hey, if I were forced to write a guide without enough time to play the game, I'd probably make assumptions based off the descriptions, too), but there's just no excuse...

 

[KMadCandy]

yeah it says it's BtS, and it includes the new leaders, but the civics don't mention the espionage or corporation changes to them either. some of the stuff is old, and some very much made me laugh.

i did see one line that might help somebody in particular tho. i think everybody's favorite AI psycho should read this, under the description of his civ: "Keep up with the pack with technology if you want to win as the Aztecs."

 

[AlessioCerci]

Well, the new civs are there at least....

 

[Spearthrower]

While I make no claims to being a genius at this game... that sample game!!! Why would you show a sample by someone that doesn't really know what's going on?

 

[Arlborn]

Nice laugh.
I am no expert, but if it was going out like that, they could at least wait some more weeks while playing it to put this guide out...

 

[bonafide11]

Haha the Incans are the worst civ in the game and the experts only should be playing as them? That's completely the opposite of how I feel. The Incans are suited for beginners because their traits are easy to work and provide nice benefits for someone who doesn't care to micromanage the game. In fact, I believe the Incans are the ideal civilization for someone who is unfamiliar with the game.

 

[Spearthrower]

There's a lot of bytes in there touted as facts which seem to run totally counter to accepted wisdom.

 

[TheLastOne36]

1 smiley is good enough:

I haven't read it yet, but if it really is like that, i'll be pissing in my pants from laughter.

 

[Welnic]

It is a copy of their warlords guide. It is very consistent, though, there are incorrect facts very evenly spaced throughout the article.

 

[MrTomothy]

Representation: I still firmly believe that specialists are overrated

Uhhh...

Slavery: The only real benefit is the ability to sacrifice your people to finish a building, which is not a recommended strategy.

Oh No!


One way to take advantage of your opponent in multiplayer is to show them this and hope they'll "learn something useful."

 

[TheLastOne36]

* Archipelago: These maps are comprised of a series of small, remote islands. Expansion and research is generally very slow, especially because you'll have to be pretty far along the technology tree to be able to start checking out other islands. Still, if you tend to be killed quickly, this map will allow you live in relative peace until the mid-game. (This is the turn-based equivalent of real-time strategy games' "No Rush" rule.) Don't even think about trying these maps until you know what you're doing.

WHAT? ROFL

Have they ever heard of a "galley"?

#


# Inland Sea: A ring of land surrounds a really large body of water here. The navy that secures the water, and therefore all its resources, will have a distinct advantage. Still, with such a large portion of the map given to water, land will be a precious commodity, so focusing only on the water will lead to suicide. This is a good map type for intermediate players who want something fresh.

Navies are next to useless in Inland Sea.

#


# Ice Age: With very high sea levels, most of the planet is unable to be lived on. Land and water are scarce, meaning things will get ugly in a hurry. If you like war, you'll probably like this map.

And there's no mention that this is "colder" then other maps.

Arabia is a bit of an enigma. It doesn't do a single thing really that great, although it is a bit above average in research thanks to the Madrassa. Not a bad civilization, per se, just not a very strong one.

Ehh? i thought Arabia was an awesome civ.

The Aztecs are jerks, but I'm biased after a few bad matches in Age of Empires II: Conquerors. Seriously though, if you're a fan of cultural victories, the Aztecs are very strong. Starting out with Mysticism allows culture points to rack up from the first turn. Production will be a bit slow at first compared to other races, but the Aztecs are generally strong until the very end. Keep up with the pack with technology if you want to win as the Aztecs.

Que pasa with IGN? Aztecs winning Cultural victory? what happened to it's war like nature?

It's good to see Babylon back in the lineup. With its unique building and unit coming in the early game, you can obviously see that Babylon needs to make its move early and keep its research rates nice and high for the whole match. Babylon's only leader, Hammurabi, greatly helps to augment the civilization. With the Organized and Aggressive attributes, especially combined with the Bowman unit, Babylon can expand very aggressively, and possibly take tons of land in the early turns. Keep up that pressure, and you'll suffocate your early rivals while keeping your technology level high to fight your late ones.

The Bowman is weak when it come to defending! What are they talking about? Bowmen are meant for attacking, skirmisher is for defending.

The Carthaginians are all about the economy. Properly played, Carthaginians can live in relative peace by trading their gold to other civilizations for treaties, and technologies. The only problem is that the Carthaginians will be behind other races in general toward the end unless war is started early. Carthaginians must expand their territory quickly in the opening turns, or they will be suffocated out of existence early.

I thought it was the exact opposite?

Intelligence is definitely not the strong suit of the French, which forces them to normally be on or behind the curve of technology. They'll produce things quickly, so it may behoove you to consider the French as a military civilization, even though they really aren't. The French, in fact, aren't much of anything, and shouldn't be played except by hardcore Civ players who tend to win every match.

Cultural Conquest ring the bell?

The Germans represent the first pure military civilization on this list. Using them to do any strategy other than an aggressive one is a waste of everyone's time. Early war will be tough, but if you use our wartime tips, you'll be well on your way to a world-class beatdown victory. Take over enemy cities to keep your resources expanding, and the world will eventually be yours.

Ounce again, Ehh?

Greece is a bizarre civilization and must be played carefully. They only have one leader, Alexander, who has a black-and-white mix of attributes. The Phalanx is a power early-game defensive unit, and expansion will come a little quick due to the starting techs. This all means that Greece can pretty much roll with any strategy you choose; however, if you change your mind in the middle of the match, it will be extremely difficult to make the change work. Basically, you'll want to decide if you want to fight for land or make peace, and stick with that ideal until there is a winner.

Phalanx are used for attacking buddy.

The fact that the Native American race hasn't been completely wiped out is a testament to their ability to defend themselves. This is reflected in the game by their bonuses: between their only leader's traits, not to mention their Totem Pole bonuses, Native American archers are ridiculously strong against enemy combatants. Well, defensively, anyway; if the Native Americans go on the offense, they will probably be cut down rather quickly. Still, if the Natives can maintain the technological curve of the world, they will be a force to deal with in the late game. The worst thing rivals can do is underestimate their strength.

No mention of the incredibaly strong dog solders?

And what's with the archers? I thought there bonuses was mainly used on powerful crossbows TO conquer the opponent.

Properly called Espa¿a but not (because Americans are jerks), Spain is yet another jack-of-all-trades civilization. It tends to be able to kick some mid-game tail in economy, and can culturally compete with practically any civilization. Toward the end, however, it will find itself getting outclassed by pretty much everyone. Stay ahead of the curve, and you should be all right.

no mention of the riducoulus religion in spain in this info?

The Imperialistic trait is the weakest one of the game. While it allows for quick expansion through many Settlers, there is nothing offsetting the increased costs associated with too large an empire. Paired with Spiritual, this is one combination that simply holds no major advantage. Combined with the "jack-of-all-trades" civilization, playing with Justinian I is a challenge insofar as there's no clear path you can even lean toward. He's made for Civilization vets, not newbies.

Buddy, Protective is the weakest trait in teh game.

Due to the Celts' military-minded policy, Brennus is a poor leader, but he's the only one you've got, so you're stuck with him. Take advantage of the Spiritual attribute to change up government policies whenever it's in your best interest.

Ehh?

Let me totally honest here... if you pick Hatshepsut, and you're on a map with land masses large and close (like Pangaea or Continents), you would have to make an effort to lose. Hatshepsut is custom-built for obscenely quick expansion, especially through culture. Creative is the single-most powerful attribute, as it allows cities to expand their borders without any upgrades, which leads to research, which leads to powerful units, which leads to a military blitz like you've never seen. Throw in the fact that you can change religions and civic policies on a whim, and Egypt becomes ridiculously powerful toward the end. I love Hatshepsut... definitely my choice for matches when I want an assured victory.

IGN knows nothing...

Creative most powerful trait?

While Alexander could be used for military, Pericles definitely leans more toward being peaceful. Creative gives you an edge in early border wars and land-grabbing, and Philosophical nets you your first Golden Age before anyone else provided you specialize a city or two in getting a Great Person. Still, Pericles (and the Greeks) is one of the weaker leaders in the game, and will be outclassed by a specialist nation that knows what it's doing.

The Incans and Zulus are the weakest two civilizations in the game, and because of Huayna Capac's attributes, the Incans are easily the worse of the two. Although the combination theoretically gives the Incans a good economy, they won't be able to take enough land to suck in the resources and churn out enough money to offset their weaknesses. In other words, they suck, and no amount of gold they make will change that. If you're going for a handicap match, have the better player pick the Incans to even things out.

ROFL!!!! The Inca and Zulu are argubaly one of the BEST civs in the game!!!!

Another weak combination, Mansa Musa doesn't really have anything going for himself or his civilization. Culture will be extremely important, because unless you manage to get some cities early, you'll have trouble otherwise extending your borders.

MM is the exact opposite of this lol.

When you think about it, the Native Americans are, as a whole, extremely persistent. Throughout the history of the United States, the odds were increasingly against their survival, and yet the population is starting a massive comeback. Sitting Bull's Protective trait is the epitome of this, allowing his cities to dig in and defend themselves against all manners of attacks. Being Philosophical, the Native Americans will also be able to keep up research with all non-science-specialized civilizations, provided they do not get dragged into a war. Like with all Protective leaders, never start a full-scale war: this just defeats the purpose of your advantages.

Super powered Crossbows is nothing to you?

A weak combination, Joao II and the Portuguese must be played a specific way. The unique building (Feitoria), the unique unit (Carrack, a ship), and Joao's Expansive trait pushes Portugal to have coastal cities to take advantage of the commerce-rich ocean. If this advantage is not pressed—such as if you're playing on Pangaea and wind up landlocked—you will lose most of the advantages associated with this combination.

Joao is my fav leader in the game! AND NO DAMNED MENTION OF HIS INCREDIBLE ABILITY TO EXPAND!!