Need help - coming over from CIV II

[NonPrayinMantis]

please delete

 

[Skallagrimson]

I definitely like the Civ2 earth map better. With so many more tiles you got a realistic number of cities you could build.

 

[JTMacc99]

I came from Civ II and ...relearn everything from scratch!!!

Some of my stupidest habits, I've found, were Civ II hold-overs. "Hey, this battleship won't attack a land unit!" :::slaps forehead:::

I agree. Civ IV is a much richer game than II, and especially with the BtS expansion, it has achieved almost the same level of playability. However, the lessons learned and strategies learned in II don't really apply in IV. Not even a little.

I think what helped me come to love Civ IV after playing endless amounts of Civ II was the short amount of time I spent playing Civ III.

III never captured me the way II and IV did, but it did manage to prepare me for such concepts as culture and the fact that I could no longer wage wars by simply waiting until I had railroads and robotics and then overrunning the entire world.

 

[JTMacc99]

I think its beginning to dawn on me that the old Civ II gold buying spending sprees, though possible in Civ IV to some extent are always going to be mostly impractical as it seems like the economy is never going to be a virtual river of unending gold like it could be in Civ II.

It can happen, especially with a financial civ, but rush buying is more of a strategy used in specific situations in specific cities as opposed to a blanket solution.

Perhaps by the time Universal Suffrage opens up my economy will have some decent momentum but certainly not early in the game, should I choose to open up the option by building the pyramid.

Only the AI civs would choose to use the pyramids to go into Universal Suffrage. Representation is generally the prize from that wonder.

I'm sometimes forced to spend some monies on keeping my neighbors at bay and the rest to upgrade troops, though I concede those decisions may be a result of my current inferior play style. Is it better to spend a few turns producing a fresh unit then spending the money to upgrade one?

Depends; usually on the promotions your outdated units are holding. It's probably better to just build a pikeman than it is to upgrade an unpromoted spearman. However, if you've got a level 4 spearman with combat 1, combat 2 and formation, it is probably worth the gold to upgrade it to a pike. Also, certain units like Macemen can get the city raider promotions, AND they can be upgrade to units that can't get city raider promotions like Grenadiers and Riflemen. It is common practice for a person to build many macemen and promote them up the city raider line, only to mass upgrade them to Grens or Rifles and quickly attack another civ still defending with longbows.

But what would I spend the gold on if not used for unit upgrades? My head is swimming.

One option would be deficit research. Run the science slider up a notch or two and let your excess gold pay for the extra research.

Its so much different. No longer do you simply spam irrigate large chunks of land to max your cities, and its still weird realizing some land is basically useless and will always be that way. But that's ok, its clearly meant to produce a deeper game experience. And on that same note, I suspect I'm not likely to see a string of 25 population super cities dotting my controlled lands. I have a lot of old game concepts to shed...

Yes and No. You can still grow lots of big cities if you make sure to settle the majority of them with either lots of fertile land OR with some fertile land and at least one but preferably two food resources. Don't forget, with the health and happiness restraints in Civ IV, you have points in the game where the city has to stop growing even if you have enough food to keep growing.

I have already scanned Sisiutil's Strategy Guide, but its still a little too technical for me as I don't have enough experience with all the various units, and I'm still trying to avoid conflict right now and just focus on learning to streamline my cities and economy and begin to explore the power of religion.

Hmm... Unlike Civ II, one of the human players greatest advantages is the ability to crush an opponent very early in the game before it has a chance to get established. Funny enough, but the idea of avoiding early conflict and working the cities and economy early in the game is actually one of those Civ II concepts you need to leave behind. Sisiutil's guide to the Early Rush is also required reading. NOTHING makes a game easier to win (at Monarch or below) than a successful early rush and elimination of your closest neighbor. Nothing.

I'm headed to the War Academy now! All of the above comments have been extremely helpful though they have opened a ton of new questions I have a strong suspicion I'll have a copy of BtS pretty soon!

Get it sooner rather than later. There are many great new concepts, and almost all of the advice you will see here pertains to the latest version of it.


Oh yeah, and speaking of Sisiutil's guides, perhaps the best learning tool I've seen in these forums is his ALC series. You simply must go to this link and read through at least one or two games. It's like watching a documentary rather than reading a book.

 

[civvver]

You won't have huge cities in civ4, that's just not the way the game is designed (my fave thing in civ2 was a bazillion we love the president days for ultra huge cities). But you don't "need" huge cities. In civ2 you had to get a city to 20 pop and work a bunch of mines to build units in one turn. In civ4 you just need like a size 15 city with a few resources and the right improvements for the same production.

However if you are tried of useless land try playing this map script http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=151629