Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

Sorry for the double post but...

I was looking around and I saw Civ Chronicles somewhere, I HAVE Civ IV and Warlords but I want Civ III, II, and I...should I get the Civ Chronicles? It seemed like a good deal, $60.
 
Pres. Slayback said:
Sorry for the double post but...

I was looking around and I saw Civ Chronicles somewhere, I HAVE Civ IV and Warlords but I want Civ III, II, and I...should I get the Civ Chronicles? It seemed like a good deal, $60.
Click to expand...
I do not think that is a question other people can answer for you. I have not played the older versions since 4 came out. Also it is probably worth checking ebay or other second hand outlets, it would not supprise me if you could get originals for all of them for less than $60.
 
I think that you can pick up the first two versions for free on the internet (they're legally available for download, as far as I know). As for Civ3, I think that you can pick up the Complete version for $30 or less. So if you already have Civ4 and Warlords it may not be worth buying Chronicles. But it's up to you. :)
 
Lord Parkin said:
they're ... available for download, as far as I know
Click to expand...
is more correct :p - the [wiki]Abandonware[/wiki] pirate sites just claim that because it is no longer sold its legal for them to ignore the copyright, but that is not the case ;)
And since Civ and Civ2 are sold again (as part of the Chronicles pack) even this excuse is mute.
So it comes down to: if you own Civ4 (Warlords is not part of Chronicles anyway) you get Civ, Civ2 and Civ3 in one nice package and some fancy other stuff (card game etc.) for a price that is probably slightly higher than what Civ, Civ2 and Civ3 would cost you legally on ebay or similar sites...
 
grandauto said:
I was wondering where is this "tutorial" someone told me about:confused: :confused: :confused: :help:
Click to expand...

If you mean In Game, it is on the start Screen of Civ IV Vanilla (Normal Version). If you are talking about something on here, well, you are as lost as I am.



Thanks guys, I think I'll get Chronicles, it would give me a backup disc too should something happen to my Civ disc.
 
grandauto said:
I was wondering where is this "tutorial" someone told me about:confused: :confused: :confused: :help:
Click to expand...

It is only in the [vanilla] Civ4 game, not Warlords (that confused me in looking for it for you as well). So if you launch Civ4, the regular version, and not Warlords, the expansion, you should see "Tutorial" as the penultimate option on the first screen.


Slightly OT, in response to Roland Johansen (apologies for the delay in response, and I hope this brief diversion isn't too out of line for the thread):

For starters, I'll gladly concede that there can certainly be infrastructure overlap even when using specialization on the individual cities - I didn't mean to imply a strict division or anything similar. I was relieved to see that I had remembered to qualify my statement with 'almost' though in the Tale of Two Cities example ;) (which I had included hastily as an afterthought anyway, in a brief attempt to indicate the advantages of specialization, before being called away at work; I probably could have explained it better (and I can appreciate your ire at the idea of a blanket "Half in one, half in the other" statement; I'll try to be more specific in my terminology in the future to avoid implications along those lines)). I guess I'd meant my statement more as a representation of the goal or idea behind specialization than as a verbatim rule of thumb. (For example, I definitely agree that markets and grocers become attractive options if a city is approaching happiness or health caps, but then again I would also argue that if you played as a highly aggressive warmonger, you could potentially maintain a large enough supply of resources to never need them, and the extra couple units built in their place could help feed that cycle, if the game happens to be playing out in that style).

Also, FWIW, I tend to favor large maps and slower speeds, which IMHO can favor specialization even more just by virtue of the larger array of cities (and units) to specialize. I personally often have cities that get no more than a granary, forge, and barracks, and then crank out troops all game long (which in turn often doesn't make it to factories et al). While a relatively cheap library would pay off eventually in those cities, I'll typically have far higher return-on-investment options to be had elsewhere. In MP or higher-difficulty games I think it can be important to try to glean that amount of turn advantage where you can (or more directly, simply to not allot the amount of production turns to infrastructure that will get you overrun and killed due to your neglect of military production). As an example, in the Off-Topic CivIVor Warlords game I'm playing in, I have over 20 cities right now, and am about to begin industrialization (/factory construction) while only having 9 banks, 7 libraries, and 7 universities (seven being the requisite number for the respective national wonders at this map size; I was quite pleased to have whipped precisely 7-7-7 in what was to be my final Spiritual-trait-enabled five-turn window of Slavery [shameless link proving that the Celts rule ;) ]). Would I like to have more economic buildings? Absolutely. Would I prefer to remain alive, while being the world's biggest target and at war with four nations? I believe so. Result? No time for any of the more frivolous infrastructure, IMHO.

I guess I feel that you can take specialization as far as you need to (or can, profitably), depending on the circumstances. In a single-player game you've got fairly under control, I don't see any problem with augmenting your infrastructure investments to include some slower-ROI choices. In a crazy MP game like the one I mentioned above, I will go so far as to sub-specialize my military cities such that only a few even get stables, as every turn counts when you are dealing with those highly unpredictable non-AI opponents. ;)

(Edit: I should note that I definitely wind up with hybrid cities as well; I just feel that in some cases (particularly in cases of extreme terrain favoritism) it can still be beneficial to specialize beyond national wonder concerns, if the map and number of cities is large enough to warrant it. I don't mean to disagree with anything you have said; I was just trying to justify my earlier position somewhat. I'd also agree that a very strong commercial city is usually best served by attempting to build most buildings, including eventually a barracks and troops once or if the economic infrastructure is completed (aside from perhaps a theatre or those sticker-shock-inducing aqueducts and colosseums - I'd typically rather conquest resources than invest in those builds), but on the flip side I think that being very Spartan (;)) in the accouterments allowed in your military cities can serve a purpose if done appropriately.)
 
Is it true that mountains can't be walked on?

Does it require a 3D graphic card? (Not an issue now I got a new computer, but curious)
 
It is true that mountains are impassable, but I'm not exactly sure about the graphics card issue. ISTR that you need a T&L- (transform & lighting) capable card (I think), but I don't recall any details beyond that.
 
Sparta said:
It is true that mountains are impassable, but I'm not exactly sure about the graphics card issue. ISTR that you need a T&L- (transform & lighting) capable card (I think), but I don't recall any details beyond that.
Click to expand...

It says on the box that you need a hardware T&L capable card, but I guarantee you that you don't, you just have to disable the "min spec warning" in the .ini settings.
 
I meant the game. lol.

thank you all ;)
 
Sparta said:
Slightly OT, in response to Roland Johansen (apologies for the delay in response, and I hope this brief diversion isn't too out of line for the thread):

For starters, I'll gladly concede that there can certainly be infrastructure overlap even when using specialization on the individual cities - I didn't mean to imply a strict division or anything similar. I was relieved to see that I had remembered to qualify my statement with 'almost' though in the Tale of Two Cities example ;) (which I had included hastily as an afterthought anyway, in a brief attempt to indicate the advantages of specialization, before being called away at work; I probably could have explained it better (and I can appreciate your ire at the idea of a blanket "Half in one, half in the other" statement; I'll try to be more specific in my terminology in the future to avoid implications along those lines)). I guess I'd meant my statement more as a representation of the goal or idea behind specialization than as a verbatim rule of thumb. (For example, I definitely agree that markets and grocers become attractive options if a city is approaching happiness or health caps, but then again I would also argue that if you played as a highly aggressive warmonger, you could potentially maintain a large enough supply of resources to never need them, and the extra couple units built in their place could help feed that cycle, if the game happens to be playing out in that style).

Also, FWIW, I tend to favor large maps and slower speeds, which IMHO can favor specialization even more just by virtue of the larger array of cities (and units) to specialize. I personally often have cities that get no more than a granary, forge, and barracks, and then crank out troops all game long (which in turn often doesn't make it to factories et al). While a relatively cheap library would pay off eventually in those cities, I'll typically have far higher return-on-investment options to be had elsewhere. In MP or higher-difficulty games I think it can be important to try to glean that amount of turn advantage where you can (or more directly, simply to not allot the amount of production turns to infrastructure that will get you overrun and killed due to your neglect of military production). As an example, in the Off-Topic CivIVor Warlords game I'm playing in, I have over 20 cities right now, and am about to begin industrialization (/factory construction) while only having 9 banks, 7 libraries, and 7 universities (seven being the requisite number for the respective national wonders at this map size; I was quite pleased to have whipped precisely 7-7-7 in what was to be my final Spiritual-trait-enabled five-turn window of Slavery [shameless link proving that the Celts rule ;) ]). Would I like to have more economic buildings? Absolutely. Would I prefer to remain alive, while being the world's biggest target and at war with four nations? I believe so. Result? No time for any of the more frivolous infrastructure, IMHO.

I guess I feel that you can take specialization as far as you need to (or can, profitably), depending on the circumstances. In a single-player game you've got fairly under control, I don't see any problem with augmenting your infrastructure investments to include some slower-ROI choices. In a crazy MP game like the one I mentioned above, I will go so far as to sub-specialize my military cities such that only a few even get stables, as every turn counts when you are dealing with those highly unpredictable non-AI opponents. ;)

(Edit: I should note that I definitely wind up with hybrid cities as well; I just feel that in some cases (particularly in cases of extreme terrain favoritism) it can still be beneficial to specialize beyond national wonder concerns, if the map and number of cities is large enough to warrant it. I don't mean to disagree with anything you have said; I was just trying to justify my earlier position somewhat. I'd also agree that a very strong commercial city is usually best served by attempting to build most buildings, including eventually a barracks and troops once or if the economic infrastructure is completed (aside from perhaps a theatre or those sticker-shock-inducing aqueducts and colosseums - I'd typically rather conquest resources than invest in those builds), but on the flip side I think that being very Spartan (;)) in the accouterments allowed in your military cities can serve a purpose if done appropriately.)
Click to expand...

To Sparta about specialisation.

I agree that luxury goods and health goods acquired through warfare can help a lot. If you have enough of them then certain buildings (aquaducts, colosseums, temples) become almost useless. That's why I mentioned something like 'if you don't have enough health/luxury resources'. But even with all of the luxury and health resources, you will still need some buildings that double their effects to keep the really big cities healthy and happy.

Also, each type of luxury and health good is restricted to a certain section of the world. So if you have acquired all of them through warfare, then you will control a major part of the world and will have already won or nearly won the game. Of course many resources could also be acquired through conquering some resources and trading for the rest. That seems like a more realistic way halfway through the game. I try to get in that position in most of my games so that I can get some good healthy and happy cities.
On non-pangea maps, the regional availibility of resources also means that many of the resources are simply not available during a major part of the game. So you'll have to make do with the ones you have and some buildings. For instance, on my latest huge map, epic speed, fractal map game, I have started on an island (alone) without happiness resources (it does have some nice health resources). So I will have to get as many happiness boosting things as possible. I will build colosseums, temples (if I can get a religion) and whenever I can get a luxury good through trade from an unknown civilisation, I will try to get the building that boosts this happiness. And of course, it doesn't matter whether the city is a production city or a commerce city in that case.

By the way, I also specialise cities. The cities that get small wonders will get a different treatment of the terrain in their fat cross and the buildings will get build in a different order. And when I settle a gold site early in the game, then this city will get a library (and market, grocer, observatory, etc.) earlier than other cities. But this last kind of 'specialisation' is nothing new for civ4. In civ3, you could also focus on the strong points of a city (allthough the difference in productivity of the terrain between cities was less in civ3). The major difference is the small wonders that encourage creating a few very specialised cities.

By the way, you used the word 'ire'. I wasn't angry or something. I just don't think that specialisation (in cities without small wonders) is such a big thing in civ4 as some people make it sound and thus wanted to voice a different opinion.
 
I used to think castles weren't worth building, but now the extra trade route has me rethinking that. Has anyone ever built a castle in a coastal city? Just how big of a yield could I expect from a coastal castle if I also had a harbor?
 
Roland Johansen said:
For instance, on my latest huge map, epic speed, fractal map game, I have started on an island (alone) without happiness resources (it does have some nice health resources). So I will have to get as many happiness boosting things as possible. I will build colosseums, temples (if I can get a religion) and whenever I can get a luxury good through trade from an unknown civilisation, I will try to get the building that boosts this happiness. And of course, it doesn't matter whether the city is a production city or a commerce city in that case.
Click to expand...

Recently, I had a marathon / huge game just like this, plus no copper, then when I finally got to IW, no Iron either, nor horses...:p

Was thinking of giving up, when I popped gold in a hill, then some Iron, and by the v early middle ages had silver and bronze too, and then Gems ! Suddenly a forge lived my happ cap by 3 (what a great building investment) plus the production benefit, (and I had been angling for Colossus which I got)...so not that you'd give up, but it can get better ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Custom AI Leaders championship
Replies
12
Views
1K
Thrasybulos
T
S
Hello everyone...few not-quick questions here
Replies
7
Views
2K
civac
C
F
The Eternal Peace
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Fins
F
FXS_Sar
March 2025 Update Livestream - join us live on March 24!
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
10K
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Lonecat Nekophrodite
PPQ_Purple
A bunch of disconnected questions
Replies
12
Views
2K
PPQ_Purple
PPQ_Purple
Back
Top Bottom