Is Perfection Neccessary?

[mbaker2311]

If it's not one thing, it's another.

I am playing on Noble difficulty, with Time, Conquest and Space victories. I have played many dozens of Civ2 games, a few dozen Civ3 (which I did not enjoy,) so I know my way around pretty well. My problem is this: it seems to me you have to play a flawless, mistake-free game to win. And I don't mean just strategically or tactically, or bread vs. butter... I mean EVERYWHERE. I found that I didn't have enough cities, so the next game (STNG) I concentrated on founding cities, but then the barbarians took them over because I had no defenses, SNTG I expanded with military units, but that didn't work because my cities didn't produce enough technology, STNG I concentrated on both, but they just both grew slowly, STNG I tried to adjust back and forth on the fly, but then I didn't have the RIGHT technology... and so on, and so on. I have played a few games to the end, and I have been at least competitive, but I have not won. It seems everything has to be near perfect to win, including the resources you get, over which you have no control. Does anyone else have this experience? I like it better than Civ3, which is not saying much, but Civ2 still looks better.

 

[Vizzini]

You can make a ton of mistakes and still win on Noble. The higher the difficulty the less you're able to get away with making mistakes.

Keep playing on Noble. The nice thing about making mistakes is that you eventually learn from them and don't make them again.. and you'll eventually reach a point where you're running the table with Noble and it'll be time to step up to the next level.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You could always try dropping one level, and see what strategy balance you can use there to win and once you are doing well there, move back up to Noble (the lower level will let you win with a few more mistakes, so you can correct the Worst ones first, and then work on the easier ones)

 

[Gargoyle]

I won on my 3rd try on Noble (Space Victory). I've since had problems. I feel I was playing watchfully in those early games and now I get ahead of myself. A little knowledge is dangerous.

I assume you know plenty about the play mechanics. So be more interested in each turn, stop bulldoging to one particular goal. Adjust to your particular situation each game. As if your playing for the first time, feel it out.

I find that Civ4 is much more about adapting and evolving to particulars then winning by a set recipe.

 

[mrjepson]

It takes many games to get used to balancing expansion with military inorder to maintain your economy and defenses. And then once you've got a good idea and move up a level you learn how to do it better. Perfection isn't needed to win, just a balance.

Personally in previous civ games i would be very underdefended until i decided to go to war. This does NOT work in civ 4. In previous civ games building new cities would not cost you GPT in maintainence, it does in civ4. It all about escorting your settlers, having enough units to deal with attacks that could be coming, and improving your existing cities before building new ones.

If you do this you should be fine.

If you later find you don't have enough cities you know that you couldn't have expanded faster so therefore your opponent must have expanded to fast and he will not have the military strength you can muster.

 

[Shillen]

It's a very complicated game. You are probably doing some things wrong. After all if beating noble required perfection then no one would be beating prince, monarch, or emperor. Sometimes you think you're doing things the best way but you're not. Just keep reading these forums (SG forums are good too) and keep practicing. I would even suggest dropping down to warlord for a game or two. I honestly think you learn more and enjoy the game more if you win. I don't believe in the philosophy of playing on a level you can't beat and expecting to learn the game that way.

 

[Finite Monkey]

Have you been chopping enough trees?

I find it is the only way I can both expand and maintain a militray presence that will keep the barbs and AI out. A simple soultion, but it gets the job done. Especially on noble. Build that worker early and chop, chop, chop your way to victory.

(Yes I realize this isn't the end all strategy, but it can help a lot)

 

[mbaker2311]

Thanks! I was hoping JUST for these kind of ideas. I will take the one about dropping down to Warlord first, though it irks me mightily. After doing well on the second highest level of Civ2, I feel I have earned the right to be able to beat the AI at least even strength <grin.> But I will drop down, and try again.

 

[Blackluck]

I've played a half dozen 'real' games so far on noble; had to suspend two games because the saved games wouldn't load, retired on two because of bonehead moves on my part (ranking Dan Qualye, and well deserved!) and two space victories. The later one on a Terra map, the other on balanced.

Each game of Civ I've played has presented different challenges -- on the Terra map, I started with the Mongols and Persia as very close neighbors. I managed to found Judaism early, then spread it to the Mongols who converted. This worked out well as he never attacked me, keeping his interests on other Civs (notably, the pesky Persians who in turn left me alone.) Penned in as I was between the two (I only had six starting cities) I still won due to the expansion to the "New World" (Terra maps are great fun, by the way.)

I digress. Generally, where I start dictates my tech choices. I build enough military units to cover my workers, map out city sites (i.e., keep them lit so barbs don't spawn), and to keep aggressive AI's from declaring on me. I've learned not to expand too quickly, else your economy will tank and your research will grind to a halt. Better to get up a core of cities, using your culture to block off future territory for expansions.

Point wise I've always been well ahead of the other Civ's, although for whatever reasons Mansa Musa is always up with me in the tech lead (in fact, every game I've played he's been there and been an equal or even slightly ahead in techs.) I still can't come close to a diplomatic win, and for culture on epic I've only succeeded in getting 2 cities to legendary (60,000 culture points) so I end up with the default space victory.

Yet, even though I'm doing well, I'm still making a lot of mistakes. I'm not using specilalist, religions, and Great people to full advantage. I've not had to face a ful blown war from other Civs and consequently I'm still weak on the military front. My tech choices are at times weak (still trying to learn the tech tree.) Etc.

For honing your Civ skills, I suggest trying a SG (succession game). Though I've never played these I've lurked that forum for years. I've learned quite a bit. Most games the players discuss why they made the choices they did; this will garner quite a bit of insight for you as you play your private games. I imagine actually playing one, you'll learn even more!

Civ 4 is great fun. Looking forward to starting up a new game tonight with a brand new Civ (played France-Louie and China-Qin so far, both of whom I think are strong Civs. Time to try someone that doesn't fit my builder style so well and see how I do.

At any rate, I think you'll be missing out if you give in now. Civ 4, IMHO is far superior to Civ II. Good luck!

 

[Radres]

I digress. Generally, where I start dictates my tech choices. I build enough military units to cover my workers, map out city sites (i.e., keep them lit so barbs don't spawn), and to keep aggressive AI's from declaring on me. I've learned not to expand too quickly, else your economy will tank and your research will grind to a halt. Better to get up a core of cities, using your culture to block off future territory for expansions.

You actually have military units to shadow your workers? And from what it sounds like, a ton more military units to keep the entire continent visible? Is this really advisable? Sounds like you have too many military units early. If the barbs come close to my city, I can usually run my workers to safety, and pull out a unit of the city to meet them if I have enough spare units. If a barb spawns in the dark, so what? Eventually the entire continent gets settled anyway.

 

[Blackluck]

You actually have military units to shadow your workers? And from what it sounds like, a ton more military units to keep the entire continent visible? Is this really advisable? Sounds like you have too many military units early. If the barbs come close to my city, I can usually run my workers to safety, and pull out a unit of the city to meet them if I have enough spare units. If a barb spawns in the dark, so what? Eventually the entire continent gets settled anyway.

Not the entire continent! Just the areas I've scouted where my settlers are going. The units covering my workers are for the cities on the frontier, which is generally one archer (or better yet, horse archer) per worker (which in the early game isn't very many workers )

The reason I do this is in the very first games I played I lost of lot of time to pillaged improvements. Having the unit out there ready to cover the worker/improvements saves on that lost time. Also, I usually have one city with a barracks producing the units for protection.

This hasn't presented a problem in upkeep or building infracture. At a guess I average about 2 military units per city, although the interior cities will only have 1 defensive unit.

edit: To clarify: If an area is in line of sight (i.e, 'lit up') barbs won't spawn there. This is vs a dark, unexplored area. Thus, putting a unit on a hill will keep the area around it 'lit'; or, even patrolling a unit between hills will also keep a larger area safe -- thus I can send out a settler by himself to the city site so long as the area he is travelling is lit up by one unit.

 

[Astax]

Noble is VERY forgiving. When Is tarted I made lots and lots of mistakes and no worries guy. Now on Monarch, it's UNFORGIVING! You make a mistake and you got a problem :/