Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Ataxerxes]

Well, my finger is above the button to delete Civ IV from my computer. Really had it with this game. Took the advice given above, tried for an easier win on Warlord level - tried cultural for some and space race for some. Tried probably 12 separate games. Not even close.

On one game - continents - had 3 other civs on my continent - tried to keep them all happy and they finally all decided to declare war on me at the same time - the same damn time - wiped me out completely.

This is too much frustration for one damn game. Any other advice would be appreciated ... taking my finger off the delete button .. one more time......

Hard to tell without a screenshot, but the advice you've gotten so far is good. It sounds like you're pursuing cultural or space victory without military. That won't work. The advice about wiping out one of the civs is what I would do. Don't wipe out two or the last one won't trade unless he's Mansa.

At Warlord, you should be OK if you have one city dedicated to producing military units. Not wonders, not libraries, etc. but military one after the other or buildings that help you to produce military. Also, in diplo you have to decide who your friends are and be close to them. Somebody won't like you, generally. Having a shared religion and cooperating with somebody (includes not trading with their worst enemy) will get you a friend. Trying to please everybody leaves you with pleasing nobody.

The other two common problems are not expanding fast enough and not having enough workers. 1.5 workers per city is the standard. Again, without seeing anything it's hard to tell, but these are the common problems for new players.

 

[Ansive]

Also, if you haven't, install the BUG mod, it's really helpful (information) in a lot of areas (including diplomacy).
http://civ4bug.sourceforge.net/BUGMod.html

 

[mimixdad]

Thanks guys for all the feedback and advice. This is the most helpful forum I have ever been on. Responses to some of the questions/comments:

I always try to balance building military with culture and research. I realize that without military a city is a sitting duck and will get attacked.

As I said in a previous post, I have read a lot of the guides and walkthroughs and I have a couple of basic questions that I think will help me for next time (assume I am trying for cultural or space race on Continents):

1) After I build the first city, I usually start with a worker to start generating resources. Should I build another settler instead to try to grab an open space for a new city? It seems if I wait with a settler, other civs are all around me and the prime spots are gone.

2) When I build another new city, I again usually start with a worker to generate resources. After the worker, I usually build a warrior for protection - if I havent brought one with the settler. Then usually something to build culture. Is this a good strategy?

3) It sounds like I need to pick a civ or two that are surrounding me and make friends with them and not trade, etc. with others if asked not to by my "friends". Correct?

4) A lot of the time, I go with recommendations on the next thing to build in a city. However, very often it pushes for another settler to be built - even when there is no room anywhere to build another city. Seems stupid of the game to do that or am I missing something?

5) I usually create up to 4 cities. I read in a guide that that is optimal at mid-game. Obviously have to balance city expenses with expansion. Is that correct?

6) Usually I play as American with either Roosevelt or Washington. I guess I always feel like its "us" against them so I like to play American. Should I be able to easily win with one of those guys given the type of game I am playing? Either one of them better than the other?

7) I usually build at least 2 workers per city. Is it overkill to build more? Or causing additonal expenses/food? Is it valuable to tell them to build roads between resources or that a waste of their time?

I guess thats enough questions for now. Thanks again for the help.

 

[Sisiutil]

1. Worker first is a very good build--provided you have something for him to do once he's done. However, your second city should ideally be founded to claim a strategic resource (usually copper or horses). Unless you spot a choice city location you absolutely must have that will start contributing to your nascent civ almost immediately (e.g. flood plains & gold), you're best to wait. If other civs are grabbing spots near you, maybe try playing a Custom Game and remove a civ or two until you feel more successful.
2. Again, Worker first is pretty good, unless the city needs to grow quickly. Take my example above of the FP/Gold city. You need that city to grow quickly so the citizens can start working the gold mines, so building a Worker there to begin with is not optimal. As for Warriors, I try to snag a strategic resource quickly so I can start building better units.
3. Yep. It's called Triangle Diplomacy. Pick two friends (who are likely to be friendly with one another as well) and screw everyone else.
4. The AI's recommendations are almost always sub-optimal. Consider them, but formulate your own overall strategy, goals, and needs and build to suit those.
5. 4 cities is okay in the early game, but if you only have that many cities by mid-game you're toast. Once you have Currency and Code of Laws you can expand quite a bit. Do so by force if necessary.
6. Both Americans are pretty good, though the UU and UB show up very late--too late, in most games, to really make much of a difference. Without an early UU/UB, you really need to leverage their traits to get the most out of them.
7. Most beginners have too few Workers. It's hard to say there's such a thing as too many, but if they're idle or building roads you don't really need a lot of the time, then you probably could have spent the hammers building something else.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Sisiutil fielded the questions well. Just a few thoughts -

1. After the worker, build something to let the city grow to about 5 and then start pumping out Settlers and Workers.
2. It might be better to have the capital or another city at happy cap build the workers for your new city.
4. AI stands for "Artificial Idiot". As Sis said, consider the recommendations but don't assume the computer has good choices listed. Same for research.
5. 4 cities at midgame isn't enough. More cities means more production and, eventually, more research. If your slider mid-game is above 70% that's usually a sign of underexpansion.
6. Sis is right about Americans. Good traits, UU and UB too late. Lincoln, although very good, is a little harder to manage optimally. Philosophical isn't best for very new players. I've had my best games with Washington but Roosevelt is good if you like wonders.
7. 2 workers might be slightly overkill unless there's a lot of jungle to be cleared. And, yes, build roads between resources. I'm a little obsessive, I usually improve a tile and then road it but that's not always best. Roads also make it much easier to respond to invasions.

 

[Trystero]

5) I usually create up to 4 cities. I read in a guide that that is optimal at mid-game. Obviously have to balance city expenses with expansion. Is that correct?

As Sisiutil and Ataxerxes have pointed out, 4 cities at mid-game is not nearly enough expansion. Expanding to 6 cities (if possible) by 1 AD is a good rule of thumb. You want, at minimum, 6 cities because many national wonders require 6 prerequisite buildings (Oxford requires 6 universities for example). More cities = more population = more commerce, more production, more research. I am willing to bet that under-expansion is your main problem. The game is very forgiving at Warlord, you should not cripple your economy if you expand to at least 6 cities (and more if your economy tolerates it.) Currency is a key tech here since it gives you extra trade route income and the ability to build wealth.

6) Usually I play as American with either Roosevelt or Washington. I guess I always feel like its "us" against them so I like to play American. Should I be able to easily win with one of those guys given the type of game I am playing? Either one of them better than the other?

I would recommend trying a Financial leader and running a "cottage economy" (where most of your research comes from commerce generated by working cottages) to fund your expansion and research. Mansa is a good choice because he is also Spiritual, which will make diplomacy easier since you can change religions or civics (and then change back if you like) without penalty. Mali also has a decent UU and UB. I also like Willem van Oranje who is Financial and Creative (no need for monuments and cheap libraries). But there are several good Financial leaders.

Good luck! Stick with the game. It is great fun once you get the hang of it.

 

[AJ11]

As Sisiutil and Ataxerxes have pointed out, 4 cities at mid-game is not nearly enough expansion. Expanding to 6 cities (if possible) by 1 AD is a good rule of thumb. You want, at minimum, 6 cities because many national wonders require 6 prerequisite buildings (Oxford requires 6 universities for example). More cities = more population = more commerce, more production, more research. I am willing to bet that under-expansion is your main problem. The game is very forgiving at Warlord, you should not cripple your economy if you expand to at least 6 cities (and more if your economy tolerates it.) Currency is a key tech here since it gives you extra trade route income and the ability to build wealth.

Currency is key because of the market. Building Wealth didn't save my rear in most cases (as I inevitably have other more important thigns to build, like military units). The market did. +25% gold in your capital is no joke.

One thing that needs to be pointed out: Playing a longer game like Marathon or Epic actually increases your chance of getting killed in the early game. The reason is that barbarians don't need to build their units. They just spawn. You, on the other hand, DO. The increased build time for your units inevitably means you are going to get overwhelmed, if not by barbs, then by the next AI that comes along.

For an easier time of it until you get the hang of the game, play Hannibal. He's Charismatic and Financial, which gives you more commerce and generally better/stronger units because of the -25% XP needed to get promoted thing. The +1 happy of the monument is gravy. Also, his unique unit is pretty strong and comes early enough to help you survive the early game. You do need horses, though.

For early game, I like to get Shock and Cover pronto, as that makes the unit into an excellent barbarian killer, and is not bad vs an AI civ.

 

[Ansive]

There's no barbarian an archer on a forest hilltop can't handle.
I play epic since it seems... well, a bit more epic, more time to do stuff. Normal feels a bit short.

I think it's
100% for normal (game turns, build times, other variables)
150% for epic
300% for marathon (200% for units)

 

[AJ11]

There's no barbarian an archer on a forest hilltop can't handle.
I play epic since it seems... well, a bit more epic, more time to do stuff. Normal feels a bit short.

I think it's
100% for normal (game turns, build times, other variables)
150% for epic
300% for marathon (200% for units)

And the chance that barbarian will not attack your archer in favour of by-passing to pillage your improvements? About 99.99%

Active defence is your only hope of keeping your improvements. I'd show you screenshots of AI civs doing exactly what you suggested, but I don't have a Print Screen button. Let's just say that their territory is covered in barbs. The cities are safe, but the countryside is just plain pillaged to heck.

 

[Strong Reaction]

Two questions:
1) I have Civ 4 gold edition I want to revert the warlords patch from 2.13 to 2.08 is this possible? I dled the patch and it would not run.

2) Is the BTS expansion compatible with the gold edition?

 

[God-Emperor]

Two questions:
1) I have Civ 4 gold edition I want to revert the warlords patch from 2.13 to 2.08 is this possible? I dled the patch and it would not run.

There is no way to downgrade to an earlier patch except reinstalling from a version that does not include any later patch. Well, no supported way - in theory you could do it by extracting everything from the earlier patch and overwriting the stuff that replaced it. I don't know how you'd go about extracting everything from the patch unless WinZip or something similar can manage it.

2) Is the BTS expansion compatible with the gold edition?

Yes.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Two questions:
1) I have Civ 4 gold edition I want to revert the warlords patch from 2.13 to 2.08 is this possible? I dled the patch and it would not run.

It's possible, but to be sure you'll need to uninstall the game, then reinstall it and patch only to 2.08. Starting with your 2.13 version and then trying to "patch down" to 2.08 just by running the file (no reinstall) is unlikely to work. Later patches are compatible with earlier versions, but not vice versa.

2) Is the BTS expansion compatible with the gold edition?

I don't have the Gold Edition myself, but I see no reason why it wouldn't be compatible with BTS. Would be very silly if it wasn't, after all.

 

[Strong Reaction]

It's possible, but to be sure you'll need to uninstall the game, then reinstall it and patch only to 2.08. Starting with your 2.13 version and then trying to "patch down" to 2.08 just by running the file (no reinstall) is unlikely to work. Later patches are compatible with earlier versions, but not vice versa.

Problem is 2.13 is the default patch when the game is installed. So it seems its not possible in my case.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Problem is 2.13 is the default patch when the game is installed. So it seems its not possible in my case.

Ah, right. Yeah, it seems that you'd need to get a hold of the original Warlords standalone expansion to be able to convert to 2.08 then. Sorry about that.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Hi.

I can’t stand the BtS music after playing with it a bit!

I’ve played Civ III and had no problem with with the music but with BtS I can’t really stand the active music a bit after starting to play the game.

 

[God-Emperor]

Hi.

I can’t stand the BtS music after playing with it a bit!

I’ve played Civ III and had no problem with with the music but with BtS I can’t really stand the active music a bit after starting to play the game.

The answer is 42.

Perhaps you could get a better answer if you asked an actual question in this here question asking/answering thread...

Most people like the Civ4 music, except the modern (which has fewer people who like it) and future era music (I'm not sure if anybody actually likes it very much). Like, for example, me. (I'd have greatly preferred it if the modern mix had some swing, which was very popular in the early modern period and somewhat popular since then, and rock'n'roll which has been popular since it took over from swing as the most popular type of modern music, in its various forms. The future era music is generally ignorable - it isn't very "musical", often sounding more like sound effects.) Then there are the weirdos who like the modern music the best. Or those equally weird people like you who don't seem to like any of it very much.

By the way, you can turn the music off. You can also specify a folder of your own music to use. Check the game options screen, sound tab.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Perhaps you could get a better answer if you asked an actual question in this here question asking/answering thread...

Quite right!

I forgot the question! Duh!
I'm at work so I rushed the writting before getting "caught" so... forgot the most important: the question!

Here the question (on my head) would have been: do you have any suggestions for me? I turn the music off but I really like background music so is there any suggestions from you guys?

.

 

[Darth Fred]

Quite right!

I forgot the question! Duh!
I'm at work so I rushed the writting before getting "caught" so... forgot the most important: the question!

Here the question (on my head) would have been: do you have any suggestions for me? I turn the music off but I really like background music so is there any suggestions from you guys?

.

I turned mine off years ago and listen to my own. Sorry, best I got.
F

 

[Sian]

6) Usually I play as American with either Roosevelt or Washington. I guess I always feel like its "us" against them so I like to play American. Should I be able to easily win with one of those guys given the type of game I am playing? Either one of them better than the other?

THIS ... is a big problem ... misguided partiotism being the reason why you solely play a certain civilization is sure to make your play less optimal (at best), if not outright bad due to clamping down on a one-shot pony strategy, knowingly killing much of your protential play with other traits

not saying that the American civ is outright bad (allthough in my book its at best mid-tier), but its certainly not the one with the "I-WIN" button stamped all over it (that'd be the ancient civs such as Rome, Persia, Sumer or prehaps Egypt, from a military pov, at least at the lower levels)

 

[Turquoiside]

) the one with the "I-WIN" button stamped all over it (that'd be.... Sumer

SUMER, an instant win? Of the ones you listed, (bearing in mind that there is no one instant win civ) Sumer is farthest from easy. It's not even second-tier in terms of advantages.


@mimixdad
The first part of his post his true though, to find more enjoyment of this game you'll need to branch out to different civs. America, since it has its UU and UBs come so late, is very different compared to most other civs in the game