Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[lymond]

Yep, you are right...I plugged the wrong numbers into a my brain

 

[Qactus]

@Pangaea There is an excellent article on how different things scale with game speed (including some calculations on the effectiveness of chopping, whipping, drafting etc.)

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/game-speed-and-map-size.411750/

Section on golden ages from that guide:

...Golden age durations are Q/N/E/M: 6/8/10/16 turns (This progression does not follow the time ratio) If Golden ages scaled to game speed they would last for Q/N/E/M 5.5/8/11.5/21 turns This means that Golden ages are less powerful on slower game speeds...

 

[Bandoneón]

Hello. I've been playing civ 4 for a while now on prince and it's been great. However, I have a few questions that I would like to ask. Sorry if they're a bit loaded, as that is my writing style.
1: Is a barracks ever worth building for an early rush (chariot/axes)? I really like using the Egyptian UU, the war chariot. Conversely, I have a lot of trouble with it because I spend valuable turns in which I should be trying to pummel my neighbors setting up barracks. The Combat 1 bonus is really nice, but is it worth 50 ? I included the other rush unit candidates because I also want to broaden my horizons with them.
2: Approximately how long (on standard speed) does an ai plot before declaring war? I often struggle with mid-game diplomacy because I don't know the length of time an ai stops from simply "having too much on their hands" to declaring war.
3: Can a vassal ever win a victory while still being a vassal? Obviously, they can’t do conquest or domination but can they still win space, diplomacy, or culture? Asking this mainly to know whether collaborating research with your vassals by trading is safe enough. I think that if they're the second strongest, they can be voted for the UN and do vote for themselves, but I'm not sure.
4: How do you use the economic civics? State property seems simple enough to me (just spam workshops for and cram watermills along rivers) but I struggle with the others more. For example, approximately how much is the extra trade route and less corporate maintenance worth to you guys for free market?

 

[Pangaea]

1: Is a barracks ever worth building for an early rush (chariot/axes)?

I'd say yes, but not everywhere. A barracks in the capital can be nice, at least for axes or HAs.

2: Approximately how long (on standard speed) does an ai plot before declaring war?

Think it varies a lot. It can be one turn, so practically instantly, or they can plot for ages and ages, and then suddenly stop (fist goes away).

3: Can a vassal ever win a victory while still being a vassal?

Definitely yes. Culture is the most dangerous one I'd say. Not sure if diplo/AP is possible, but maybe? Space is possible too, but should be easy to control as you are probably much bigger and can direct their research to other things. Culture however is hard to control. If they go into culture mode you can't really do anything about it, except spy shenanigans I suppose.

4: How do you use the economic civics?

Free market is pretty good on bigger maps with many AIs, because you then get more trade routes to AI cities (and fewer internal ones), and even more so after astro on continents types maps. Corporate maintenance is only a factor if you get corporations, obviously, but if you do, then FM is a good move. You can postpone a bit and stay in Mercantilism for a while, but not SP. Corps don't work at all then, and you can't even found them if you have the great person and techs for it. Hard to quantify what it is worth, but SP and FM have different strengths. FM is about commerce and corporations, while SP is for food, hammers and gold (less maintenance). Unless going with corporations, however, I'd say that state property is a safe and very strong option, and probably better than a "naked" free market empire. All that extra food AND hammers from boosted workshops and watermills is very, very strong. On top of that, you get 0 costs in distance from the Palace (including for overseas colonies) and even more hammers from the 10% bonus, which also affect whips. Free market comes earlier, though, so it can be nice to go into it even if you plan a communism game.

 

[Bandoneón]

I'd say yes, but not everywhere. A barracks in the capital can be nice, at least for axes or HAs.


Think it varies a lot. It can be one turn, so practically instantly, or they can plot for ages and ages, and then suddenly stop (fist goes away).


Definitely yes. Culture is the most dangerous one I'd say. Not sure if diplo/AP is possible, but maybe? Space is possible too, but should be easy to control as you are probably much bigger and can direct their research to other things. Culture however is hard to control. If they go into culture mode you can't really do anything about it, except spy shenanigans I suppose.


Free market is pretty good on bigger maps with many AIs, because you then get more trade routes to AI cities (and fewer internal ones), and even more so after astro on continents types maps. Corporate maintenance is only a factor if you get corporations, obviously, but if you do, then FM is a good move. You can postpone a bit and stay in Mercantilism for a while, but not SP. Corps don't work at all then, and you can't even found them if you have the great person and techs for it. Hard to quantify what it is worth, but SP and FM have different strengths. FM is about commerce and corporations, while SP is for food, hammers and gold (less maintenance). Unless going with corporations, however, I'd say that state property is a safe and very strong option, and probably better than a "naked" free market empire. All that extra food AND hammers from boosted workshops and watermills is very, very strong. On top of that, you get 0 costs in distance from the Palace (including for overseas colonies) and even more hammers from the 10% bonus, which also affect whips. Free market comes earlier, though, so it can be nice to go into it even if you plan a communism game.

Thank you! I'd say that answers my questions.

 

[lymond]

Thank you! I'd say that answers my questions.

Vassal can possibly win AP if a) in the AP religion or b) own the wonder. Otherwise they will vote for you, if you were eligible. They can win culture and space, but that would be silly. You’ve technically already nerfed them.

Note: You can direct a vassal”s tech

A relatively strong vassal can be a good thing. They can research some tech for you, and at minimum prove a distraction to your enemies at war. Still, if you are anywhere close to letting them win in some manner, then something is wrong..ha

If a barracks is taking you a long time then you do not know how to use whipping and/or you don’t chop forests. But yeah, barracks are not needed. Sometimes simply speed of attack > the promo.

Free Market is a good civic. Key thing though is use of corporations, which are simply not always that powerful on certain maps. State Prop disables corps. State Prop also rocks late game.

Approximately how long (on standard speed) does an ai plot before declaring war? I

As Pangaea noted, there is really no way to say for certain when an AI is going to attack. Ha..unless you see a nice size stack parked on your borders. But the fact that they are plotting says something. Ofc, they may not be plotting on you, but if you fear that they may be plotting on you then you should be preparing in some way for that eventuality, like dealing with them yourself or letting someone else do that for you.

This guide from the Strategy & Tips subforum is excellent tool to understand how each leader thinks:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-illustrated-1-know-your-enemy.478563/

You can always reference this guide. One line of note is "Can plot war at pleased:". Some AIs simply will not plot war on you at "Pleased" or higher - unless, they started plotting on you before they became "Pleased".

 

[Bandoneón]

Vassal can possibly win AP if a) in the AP religion or b) own the wonder. Otherwise they will vote for you, if you were eligible. They can win culture and space, but that would be silly. You’ve technically already nerfed them.

Note: You can direct a vassal”s tech

A relatively strong vassal can be a good thing. They can research some tech for you, and at minimum prove a distraction to your enemies at war. Still, if you are anywhere close to letting them win in some manner, then something is wrong..ha

If a barracks is taking you a long time then you do not know how to use whipping and/or you don’t chop forests. But yeah, barracks are not needed. Sometimes simply speed of attack > the promo.

Free Market is a good civic. Key thing though is use of corporations, which are simply not always that powerful on certain maps. State Prop disables corps. State Prop also rocks late game.



As Pangaea note, there is really no way to say for certain when an AI is going to attack. Ha..unless you see a nice size stack parked on your borders. But the fact that they are plotting says something. Ofc, they may not be plotting on you, but if you fear that they may be plotting on you then you should be preparing in some way for that eventuality, like dealing with them yourself or letting someone else do that for you.

This guide from the Strategy & Tips subforum is excellent tool to understand how each leader thinks:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-illustrated-1-know-your-enemy.478563/

You can always reference this guide. One line of note is "Can plot war at pleased:". Some AIs simply will not plot war on you at "Pleased" or higher - unless, they started plotting on you before they became "Pleased".

Thanks for your input as well, @lymond. I learned most of what I know about civ 4 from everybody on civfanatics, especially @Sisiutil. His old ALC challenge threads are still a joy to read in my opinion.

 

[lymond]

Thanks for your input as well, @lymond. I learned most of what I know about civ 4 from everybody on civfanatics, especially @Sisiutil. His old ALC challenge threads are still a joy to read in my opinion.

Sisituils stuff is ok starting out, but a lot of his stuff is outdated and sometimes wrong. You can learn a lot over in S&T. You’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Bandoneón]

Sisituils stuff is ok starting out, but a lot of his stuff is outdated and sometimes wrong. You can learn a lot over in S&T. You’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah I mostly agree with that point. He had a lot of trouble playing isolated starts from what I remember, he really struggled with managing specialists, and really loved the early rush which gets a little bit old and ineffective pretty fast. I more enjoyed the camaraderie, input from other players, and how he explained everything.
From what I've seen at S&T so far, it's pretty great. I think Noble's Club is very similar but a lot more open-ended and up to personal decision making and the Civ Illustrated project is going pretty well (my favorite part was how in the first one, the organizers promised to do a summary of some of the more problematic or strange leaders, but there was only one and it was just a rant on Sitting Bull and his well poisoning )
Greatest thing I've seen so far was @WastinTime's deity space ship BC run utilizing wonder bread and strike economy. Simply incredible.

 

[Pangaea]

Civ Illustrated project is going pretty well (my favorite part was how in the first one, the organizers promised to do a summary of some of the more problematic or strange leaders, but there was only one and it was just a rant on Sitting Bull and his well poisoning )

We had planned to do proper analysis of all leaders and there was some work in that direction (the whole project was a gigantic undertaking). Then things kinda died out a bit, and @Kaitzilla to his great honour put it all together and posted the guide, with a million links and stuff. Fantastic work, and I love that guide. Use it all the time, hence why it's in my sig When playing serious games, I tend to have it in a tab in Firefox, and then tab out of the game to check something, like if leader X can plot or be bribed at current relations. Lain seems to remember all this off-hand, but I don't

 

[Bandoneón]

We had planned to do proper analysis of all leaders and there was some work in that direction (the whole project was a gigantic undertaking). Then things kinda died out a bit, and @Kaitzilla to his great honour put it all together and posted the guide, with a million links and stuff. Fantastic work, and I love that guide. Use it all the time, hence why it's in my sig When playing serious games, I tend to have it in a tab in Firefox, and then tab out of the game to check something, like if leader X can plot or be bribed at current relations. Lain seems to remember all this off-hand, but I don't

I concur of its usefulness. To venture further from the main topic a bit, isn't it a bit strange that Sitting Bull loves to poison your wells so much? Were they the master perpetrators behind the largest bioterrorist attack on American soil, the smallpox blankets? In all seriousness though, I would really like to see analysis on more of the leaders. Some of them would be pretty easy, like Monty's insane and will try to Zerg rush you with his hopelessly outdated units, Tokugawa is impossible to trade techs with unless you have pretty high relations, and Mansa will tech ridiculously and loves to trade techs. A lot of the others would probably be impossible because they're less infamous or well-defined. Could you really say anything about Roosevelt except he's high peaceweight, tries pretty hard to convert you to Mercantilism, and can plot at pleased ?

 

[Pangaea]

Suppose you could say that all AIs play badly (some less than others), and you should therefore try to treat their malaise by placing their head on a pike

On a more serious note, there is a lot of randomness involved, so leaders can play kinda differently based on random rolls or the map. What I like about that guide is that it's objective and the information is easily accessible. Analysis of leader behaviour like SB or Monty or whatever, would have a certain deal of subjective analysis which may not be as valuable for the user in the given game they're in. Also, the "wage war on neighbours" factor kinda includes lots of stuff, so guys like Monty will be high there, while Gandhi is not.

Some leaders have pretty clear trends though, like that Isabella loves to go for an early Oracle due to her religious fanaticism. People like Elizabeth and Willem can be Liberalism threats because of their favourite civics.

And crucially: The human plots at Friendly!

 

[Bandoneón]

Suppose you could say that all AIs play badly (some less than others), and you should therefore try to treat their malaise by placing their head on a pike

On a more serious note, there is a lot of randomness involved, so leaders can play kinda differently based on random rolls or the map. What I like about that guide is that it's objective and the information is easily accessible. Analysis of leader behaviour like SB or Monty or whatever, would have a certain deal of subjective analysis which may not be as valuable for the user in the given game they're in. Also, the "wage war on neighbours" factor kinda includes lots of stuff, so guys like Monty will be high there, while Gandhi is not.

Some leaders have pretty clear trends though, like that Isabella loves to go for an early Oracle due to her religious fanaticism. People like Elizabeth and Willem can be Liberalism threats because of their favourite civics.

And crucially: The human plots at Friendly!

In most situations, a non biased analysis like what they already have is just objectively better for this sort of stuff. I remember that there is a game tip in the loading screen that occasionally, even a normally peaceful leader such as Gandhi can sometimes be very aggressive, even pre-nukes! I guess I just can't shake how hilarious the Sitting Bull rant was.

 

[R82]

Some game mechanics questions mostly unrelated to the current discussion, except that one of them might fit into the "habits of leaders" theme, all about BtS:

1) Can researching Alphabet make it more likely that an AI attacks you? That is, could the AI become more likely to attack you if they can, now, see that you have a tech that they want, in the hope of forcing you to hand it over during eventual peace negotiations?

2) How does the "automatic" espionage work? That is, handbooks and guides are full of information on how to train and deploy spies, but what about the way you can, sometimes, see not only what a civ is researching, but even what's going on in some of their cities, without having anyone there?

3) I've noticed that sometimes, some AI-led civs are painfully slow to expand. I've played games where one of the AI civs took forever to even found their second city, never mind additional ones. Also, I've kind of got the impressions that this is more likely to happen with the Egyptians than others. What's up with that?

4) This one is pretty obscure: when the game decides which AI civs and leaders you play against, does it first decide on civs, and then on leaders, or on leaders from the start? That is, are civs with two or three leaders more likely to be chosen, or are individual leaders from civs with two or three leaders less likely to be chosen?

 

[lymond]

1) Can researching Alphabet make it more likely that an AI attacks you? That is, could the AI become more likely to attack you if they can, now, see that you have a tech that they want, in the hope of forcing you to hand it over during eventual peace negotiations?

Not saying there is nothing to this at all, but I've never remotely heard anything in all my years to this effect. I doubt the AI is smart enough to think in these terms.

2) How does the "automatic" espionage work? That is, handbooks and guides are full of information on how to train and deploy spies, but what about the way you can, sometimes, see not only what a civ is researching, but even what's going on in some of their cities, without having anyone there?

Use the espionage screen. The spy button in the top right. Click on the leader you are targeting. At the right you will see a list and the corresponding amount of EP level needed to activate passive information like research. (Keep in mind that those figures are also impacted by espionage that leader may be focusing on you) Of course, you will put your focus into the target AI by setting the weight to 1. Weight can be manipulated between multiple AIs as you wish, but I usually focus on one leader early in order to at least see his tech.

I don't generally invest in espionage buildings, so don't play with it more than what I get from palace and the occasional captured courthouse. Rarely, but not often, I might invest a little commerce into the espionage slider temporarily, but only with a very specific reason for doing so.

3) I've noticed that sometimes, some AI-led civs are painfully slow to expand. I've played games where one of the AI civs took forever to even found their second city, never mind additional ones. Also, I've kind of got the impressions that this is more likely to happen with the Egyptians than others. What's up with that?

What level do you play on? Regardless of level though, some AIs do tend to expand slower than others. This is tied in part to their flavor or coding. This guide is an excellent reference on understanding leaders better - very useful for diplo as well:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-illustrated-1-know-your-enemy.478563/

Some AIs like Ramses and Pacal may focus more on Wonders early than expansion. IMP leaders tend to expand faster than others.

4) This one is pretty obscure: when the game decides which AI civs and leaders you play against, does it first decide on civs, and then on leaders, or on leaders from the start? That is, are civs with two or three leaders more likely to be chosen, or are individual leaders from civs with two or three leaders less likely to be chosen?

Interesting question and one I'm not sure about. I've always assumed the civ is chosen first. What I do know from experience, is that I more often roll leader like Joao, Monty and Sury than I do...say...French and English leaders.

 

[R82]

Thank you! I usually play on Noble - not very impressive, I know, but for now I'm having enough difficulties on that level.

Another question: Are AI leaders more interested in trying to built Wonders that were associated with their Civ in real life history?

 

[Bandoneón]

Thank you! I usually play on Noble - not very impressive, I know, but for now I'm having enough difficulties on that level.

Another question: Are AI leaders more interested in trying to built Wonders that were associated with their Civ in real life history?

Never. They usually spam wonders based on their access to stone and marble.

 

[lymond]

Thank you! I usually play on Noble - not very impressive, I know, but for now I'm having enough difficulties on that level.

Another question: Are AI leaders more interested in trying to built Wonders that were associated with their Civ in real life history?

Some Leaders are coded for a more wonder oriented flavor, which can often be random. I've seen like a Pacal in complete Wonder whore mode with very slow expansion even on IMM level. But yeah, I've never noticed any particular affinity for historically-based wonders.

Highly recommend becoming a denizen of the Strategy & Tips forum:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/civ4-strategy-tips.155/

You will improve very quickly. Learn a lot of basic things that are likely very lacking from your gameplay.

 

[TruePurple]

What does white star on name bar of Philadelphia signify?

Are more city structures preserved if you flip a city rather than conquer it? I forget, when a city flips from culture, do you have a chance to destroy the city instead?

Is there a way to destroy a city other than when you first take a enemy city?

 

[lymond]

The reason for the white star escapes me.

As far as I know, structures are not destroyed when a city is flipped, other than culture buildings. I could be wrong though.

Yes

No
(edit: maybe let a barb take it or another leader, and take it back again)