Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

Is it possible to change the color of your cultural borders? The Holy Roman Empire's pee-yellow is a bit much this morning.

 

If you want to do that you will have to do some XML editing. It's easier if you save it (in the very beginning of the game) in WB, then edit that game. You'll find the color, which you can edit.
Or go here

 

Ahhhhh... Thank you.

 

^ I think if you go to the file in the link, you can permanently change the colors.

 

Bonjour there, Civpeople. First post and already questions...heheheh, never expect anything good from me. Not to mention that, well, I have quite odd problem speaking of Civilization 4. Finally tried it out last week and it's most excellent, especially multiplayer gaming. As I'm absolutely new, I've started at Noble level, currently started one Prince game. Obviously BTS 3.19. And now...well, let me tell you story, a story of me playing Civ 4...

Well, game is extremely fun - I expected that since I played Civ2 on PSX yeeeeeears ago - yet obviously, having almost no clue what to do I looked for some tutorials around to see what I can see. Found Civfanatics and its War Academy - great stuff, I'm indebted to its creators. But going back to story, I'm playing Civ 4 a mere weak, yet all these guides gave me a brief idea about game. It seems really complicated and full of possibilities...don't get me wrong, it makes it even better for me. So far it sounds nice but...

Well, now that I know what Civ is about, I always feel that I'm horribly failing at it with every minor mistake or unrealized goal, even with simply bad luck I feel like, yeah, simply that I'm constantly doing something wrong even on level like Noble and even if what I did isn't even a mistake. Spawned in an average place, didn't manage to get cheap Stonehenge or discover/ convert to any religion early? Damn, I'm so bad. Whole game is down now, guess I gotta go and try with another country or simply stop for now. And I keep trying and sometimes it goes quite good as for a newbie, yet fact of a few wasted (or maybe not?) turns or unrealized goal haunts me through all the game and eventually makes me stop or start new campaign again. And I know - as I cannot express how I like that Civ 4 - I won't give up easily. And thus, while I'm playing and getting first worker a bit too early - I feel bad, to late - bad as well. But, guess what, it's double-edged sword. Current Prince game I started (Mongolia/Kublai Khan) is probably the best example.

So, the spawn was quite average, to not say poor - I decided to give it a go nonetheless, hoping to realize my goals either way. Maybe I'll be able to prove myself at least at once? Let's try. And then I...had too much luck. With villages. Earning about 500$ and Bronze Working in ~3600 BC is a lot, you can tell. I felt like it's too easy and now as I'm having so nice boosts I should achieve much more. But guess what, I didn't. Local area proved to be not that good - lots of deserts, low variety of resources, copper too far away to make a base there (maintenance would kill me). And now again, whichever way will I pick will be bad. Huge costs - bad, lack of copper - even worse. In meantime I struggled with techs a bit, guess I wasted a few turns (don't know which tech was it by now). In the end I finished Iron Working ~1500BC, again feeling wrong. I found Iron a bit closer than Copper, but then again it'll cost me much (had two cities at the time). Nonetheless I managed to claim iron, somehow. But how am I going to make Keshiks without horses? Again, horses were a few tiles away, close to England's border. And nowhere else in wide range from capital. Damn...again, I can claim it and pay even more, or leave it and be doomed. And yet again I feel like it's totally my fault that I couldn't make my way to Iron easier. And whole advantage of bronze working is lost by now...not to mention that lack of any religion haunted me since start. Around 500 BC Hinduism and Judaism arrived, but again I asked myself "shouldn't I be the one who founds religion?"

And again, and again, over and over, feeling that I've failed somewhere never lets me go since first turns. I would like to do everything exactly as I planned and wanted to, but well, it's either impossible or I'm that bad. Eventually, seeing that more and more things are bugging me I'm losing grip and...yeah, I can't even finish the game. Around 1300 AD is my record with Russia, while I eventually lost grip (and probably it is not that bad game - I even won a few wars and maybe I could go for domination/conquest). Is it usual start while playing Civ for first time? Surely I won't ever be pr0 yet, not even aiming for it, I'd like to at least constantly improve my skills? I'm also playing one MP game with two friends as Rome. Here I had much better starting position and managed to start almost exactly as planned (2500 BC now), but what if I will fail to fulfil any of my goals here? What's worse here that we are playing as one team - and slowly losing will to play while realizing that I could have that building or technology two turns earlier...I'd be completely worthless then. Even more than now.

Probably it's problem with attitude - I would simply want, no, I have to do everything in perfect manner exactly as I've planned to feel that I'm doing good. It is hopeless to watch someone failing, isn't it? Surely I will learn much more things about game in practice, but at some point it's not fun anymore, when I realize that I failed at least once. Everything must be in place. On the other side of coin there are good things. Like that early Bronze Working, or say magnificient spawnpoint. I'd probably again feel bad as it is too much for a start and it might be too easy. How such victory can be satisfying when you know that you had perfect start? I'd like to prove myself, simply, yet there are things I cannot foresee and overcome - I won't guess where copper is before Bronze Working. Is it fault? As you've read all that post, you can see I'm simply lost. I badly don't want to fail, but I also want game to be fair. Daily I'm spending some time in War Academy, reading all these guides and trying to form then into easier rules for me. Every game and see more and more things, and - what's horryfying - more and more places where I can fail. This way...yeah, I am doomed.

Told'ya, is it extremely stupid case. I want everything to be in its place, yet at some points there is always at least a minor fail. Like Stonehenge or not even strategic resource. Could anyone explain me how it is? I just don't know. Everything what doesn't goes as I've planned wrecks me, literally.


Would love to see some helpful responses from you Civ-Playes, although I realize how wrong (and after all fun - my MP-partners have good fun hearing me on TS desperately trying to keep everything in place from time to time) that problem is.
Anjin

 

No, you shouldn't. Unless maybe you start with Mysticism. Getting an early religion can actually decrease your odds of winning. This is becasue you may feel compelled to spread yuor religion, but all that production you are sinking into missionaries could be spent on other things that are more likely to help you win.

2 things:

First, it's only a game. Do you feel this way when you play solitaire? Checkers? Tiddlywinks? It's just a game.

Second: Perfection is not required. Either in playing a game or in "real life".

 

I do make things better though.

 

In particular, you really don't want to found two. Found one, and at least it'll spread to all your cities with no religion. Found two, and whichever you pick as your state religion, you're building missionaries.

 

What makes it so that some religious buildings give bonus hammers? I noticed that building a Temple or Monastery of one religion gives +2 hammers, but building a different religion's buildings don't give bonus hammers.

 

The building must be from the religion of the Apostolic Palace.

 

I thought so, but I couldn't find anything in the AP's entry about that bonus. Maybe I'll start building it then...

 

You can try this.

 

I read most of that, and skimmed thru the rest. Just wanted to say, it's okay not to be able to handle Noble in your first game. Even if you haven't forgotten Civ2, it probably doesn't mean you can play this at the same difficulty level that you used to play that. If Noble is too hard, try Warlord or even Chieftain for a game or two.

My specific comment was regarding the two cities at Iron Working. You realize you could have more, right? If you're getting problems from having too few cities, build some more. They don't all have to be in 'perfect' locations, just expand into the nearby tiles.

 

I disagree with this. If you can't play Noble, then learn how to play Noble. Figure out what's wrong with your game and fix it (this forum has excellent resources for that). Don't move down to levels where you are given advantages over the AI.

 

I agree with the disagree above I think noble is a brilliant starting point, you and the AI are level pegging in terms of beakers generated and units at start, no bonuses. This was where I started and I lost like every game when I began playing lol (didn't even finish most games)
I think I used to play to build an empire too and see how i could grow, rather than really aim for a victory so I learned a lot of the mechanics that way. Eventually I stepped it up and noble is way easy now. I believe that playing too much on lower levels is a crutch and prevents you from really seeing the holes in your game. If you are comfortable at a level, go up a notch and challenge yourself. A victory is meaningless if you're gifted all the bonuses you need. Grasp the noble nettle!

 

And I must respectfully disagree with both of these posts. Civ is a game. Most of us play it for fun and leisure. If you're not having fun, you're likely to give it up, and that would be a shame, as it is a very fun game. Now, maybe some people like getting shellacked repeatedly until they figure out how to make progress, but I think they're in the minority. Most of use need to experience some measure of success in order to experience some enjoyment. In games, that means winning or at least coming close to winning. The lower levels exist for this very reason.

On a personal note, I came from Civ II, tried Noble out of the gate, and promptly got my butt well, truly, and soundly kicked. I dropped down to Settler, played maybe one game on each of the lower levels while reading some posts around here, then worked my way back up to Noble when it felt like a fun challenge to me.

It's your hard-earned leisure time, spend it in the most enjoyable manner possible. If that's struggling to stay alive when you barely know what you're doing, then fine; but if it's achieving some success while learning the mechanics of the game, that's fine too.

 

This certainly is the bottom line. Do what you enjoy. I don't enjoy learning cheap tricks to exploit the AI and then having to unlearn them as I progress through the levels. But that's just me.

If your objective is to have fun instead of to learn the game, then by all means play the lower levels. However, if that's all you want then I don't really understand what you are doing on this forum. Just play on settler, push units around and have fun. My son never progressed past this and never had any interest in doing so. But then he never came here either.

Winning this game at levels below Immortal really just requires learning how to build your empire properly. City placement and worker management has to be at least 75% of the job. Actually, I would recommend starting on Monarch or higher because this where you have to throw out many of the easy exploits like warrior rushes and excessive wonder hogging. Again, that's just me. My first game was on Noble and my second on Monarch but undoubtedly my long career with previous Civ games helped.

 

I agree with Sisiutil. The main thing is to have fun, and we all have to find our level. One of the reasons the game have so many levels is for us to start at the bottom and then slowly move upwards if we so fancy. It's a GAME after all, and the main objective is to have fun. Getting your ass handed to you, whether that is on noble, emperor or deity, isn't my idea of FUN.

Another aspect is that on the lower difficulties, it's easier to win in any way you want, and just building up an empire without an immediate goal of killing everybody is more feasible. At the higher difficulties you sort of have to play a certain way to stand a chance of winning, and that doesn't cater to all people.

 

I agree about the fun value of the game. I started on Settler, and am now working on Prince/Monarch. I always have fun, and that's why I play.

 

I think you missed my point by, oh, I dunno, a parsec or two. Just because someone starts playing Civ on a lower level doesn't mean that they "enjoy learning cheap tricks", let alone that they'll use them in the first place. Just because someone wants to have fun doesn't mean they don't want to learn the ins and outs of the game. They aren't mutually exclusive goals. Quite the opposite; having fun encourages further learning and progress.

If there's one thing I learned during my time as a grade school teacher, it's that everyone is unique and learns in their own way and at their own pace. It's great if you're one of the advanced kids who progresses quickly, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the class deserves your contempt.