Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Civrules
- Start date
Rammones
Chieftain
Hi there,
is there any way to connect inland city on another continent to the trade network on the main continet? For example, I want the inland city on anotther continent to produce something that needs iron (which is avaliable on the other contient). Thanks a much.
edit: I just answered myself in the game - connecting the city via road with coastal city works
is there any way to connect inland city on another continent to the trade network on the main continet? For example, I want the inland city on anotther continent to produce something that needs iron (which is avaliable on the other contient). Thanks a much.
edit: I just answered myself in the game - connecting the city via road with coastal city works
I'm not a noob by any means, I've been playing Civ since Civ II first came out. I loved Civ III and now I'm on IV. Anything above warlord results in me getting my butt kicked so I'm not too good. I find this to be a really hard game and I find myself getting frustrated with it but I'm determined to get it.
I'll ask more specific questions in the proper forums but the one I have the biggest problem with right now is regarding tech trading. I seem to always get hemmed in because I have a hrad time keeping my economy going when I try to keep up with the Ai civs expansion rate. The worst part about this that I fall behind technologically. This could be mitigated by trading techs but too often the other civs will trade with one another but not with me. Whats up with that? What am I doing wrong?
I'll ask more specific questions in the proper forums but the one I have the biggest problem with right now is regarding tech trading. I seem to always get hemmed in because I have a hrad time keeping my economy going when I try to keep up with the Ai civs expansion rate. The worst part about this that I fall behind technologically. This could be mitigated by trading techs but too often the other civs will trade with one another but not with me. Whats up with that? What am I doing wrong?
I'm not a noob by any means, I've been playing Civ since Civ II first came out. I loved Civ III and now I'm on IV. Anything above warlord results in me getting my butt kicked so I'm not too good. I find this to be a really hard game and I find myself getting frustrated with it but I'm determined to get it.
I'll ask more specific questions in the proper forums but the one I have the biggest problem with right now is regarding tech trading. I seem to always get hemmed in because I have a hrad time keeping my economy going when I try to keep up with the Ai civs expansion rate. The worst part about this that I fall behind technologically. This could be mitigated by trading techs but too often the other civs will trade with one another but not with me. Whats up with that? What am I doing wrong?
This is one of, if not the, hardest bit of Civ IV. The answer is to correctly balance expansion (building more cities) with development (growing the cities you have). Here are some hints, but I am not a great player:
Only build "good" cities during the early phase of the game. What is a good city is debatable, but it includes cities that get strategic reasorces, cities that get luxes and cities with food bonuses.
Prioritize the techs that will solve your problems. There are a few, for me the most important one it Monarchy, with give hereditary rule which allows your cities to grow. Others are calendar (for the luxes), currency (for markets) and code of laws (for courthouses).
Build cottages early and often. Decide which of your cities will be production cities, and possibly one for the national epic, and the others get only cottages after the farm or 2 they need to grow.
Grow your cities while you can. Get them up near the happiness cap before you build workers and settlers, or use the whip much (this does not apply to you first few cities).
Do not build too many units if you are not going to use them. They cost money that could be used for reaserch.
Last but not least, do not worry about falling behind. You should always be able to catch up later, either by having more good cites (because you expanded early) or with the pointy sticks you can use much better than the AI (you can you know, however bad you are).
I hope this helps, feel free to ask for clarification. Welcome to CFC
![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
God-Emperor
Deity
Willingness to trade depends a lot on how much they like you. Perversely, trading with them can improve your relations since one of the positive modifiers is "our trades have been fair and forthright" (or something like that) which really means "you were gullible and let us rip you off" since you get it when you give them a trade that they get more value out of than you do, from +1 for a trade that is noticeably in their favor up to +4 for pretty much just giving them a tech.
Other than that, the other standard diplomatic things help: same religion, using their favorite civic, open borders long enough to get the bonus, trading a resource long enough to get the bonus, going to war against the civ they are at war with, giving in to requests/demands, and such. The specific level of friendliness (or lack thereof) that is required for them to be willing to trade varies from leader to leader - some will trade techs at angry, others won't trade techs unless they are pleased. Note that even if they are willing to trade techs in general, there are things that will stop them from considering a trade such as when they don't know anyone else who has the tech (as far as they know they have a monopoly on it, in which case they may not want to trade it) or if they are trying to build the world wonder that the tech grants the ability to build.
On Noble it is almost always possible to research faster than any individual AI unless you get a relatively bad staring position (bad terrain, few resources, or being hemmed in and ending up with a much smaller amount of territory than usual or, the worst case, all three), but it can take a while to get to the point where it is significant. Of course, as you have noticed, you are not normally competing with a lone AI since they trade techs amongst themselves a lot. The AIs that don't trade techs as easily tend to fall behind (like, say, Tokugawa).
There are many articles over on the Civ4 - Strategy & Tips forum about keeping your economy going while expanding, and in general. On Noble it is possible to expand pretty quick. A (temporary) drop in the research slider to under 50% when just barely making money is nothing to worry about - a few cottages and courthouses and you'll begin to recover nicely. On the other hand if you are still in the negative money per turn range when at 0% then you are in serious trouble. Note the mention of courthouses - they are very good for your economy. There are some techs that are key for your economy, and these include Pottery for cottages, Writing for libraries (doesn't directly help your money economy, but increases research rate directly and lets you work some scientist specialists, who increase research rate independently of what the slider is set to and also give those very nice great scientist points), Code of Laws for courthouses, and Currency for the extra trade route in every city and the ability to trade money and the ability to directly build money as well as the market building.
Other than that, the other standard diplomatic things help: same religion, using their favorite civic, open borders long enough to get the bonus, trading a resource long enough to get the bonus, going to war against the civ they are at war with, giving in to requests/demands, and such. The specific level of friendliness (or lack thereof) that is required for them to be willing to trade varies from leader to leader - some will trade techs at angry, others won't trade techs unless they are pleased. Note that even if they are willing to trade techs in general, there are things that will stop them from considering a trade such as when they don't know anyone else who has the tech (as far as they know they have a monopoly on it, in which case they may not want to trade it) or if they are trying to build the world wonder that the tech grants the ability to build.
On Noble it is almost always possible to research faster than any individual AI unless you get a relatively bad staring position (bad terrain, few resources, or being hemmed in and ending up with a much smaller amount of territory than usual or, the worst case, all three), but it can take a while to get to the point where it is significant. Of course, as you have noticed, you are not normally competing with a lone AI since they trade techs amongst themselves a lot. The AIs that don't trade techs as easily tend to fall behind (like, say, Tokugawa).
There are many articles over on the Civ4 - Strategy & Tips forum about keeping your economy going while expanding, and in general. On Noble it is possible to expand pretty quick. A (temporary) drop in the research slider to under 50% when just barely making money is nothing to worry about - a few cottages and courthouses and you'll begin to recover nicely. On the other hand if you are still in the negative money per turn range when at 0% then you are in serious trouble. Note the mention of courthouses - they are very good for your economy. There are some techs that are key for your economy, and these include Pottery for cottages, Writing for libraries (doesn't directly help your money economy, but increases research rate directly and lets you work some scientist specialists, who increase research rate independently of what the slider is set to and also give those very nice great scientist points), Code of Laws for courthouses, and Currency for the extra trade route in every city and the ability to trade money and the ability to directly build money as well as the market building.
Rammones
Chieftain
Hi there again,
a) is there any way in Civ IV how to force some religion to come into my land? 90% of the world has the same religion and I cannot convert, because there is none of my cities having this religion.
b) does Free Religion civic solves this "you have fallen under heaten religion etc."?
Thanks
a) is there any way in Civ IV how to force some religion to come into my land? 90% of the world has the same religion and I cannot convert, because there is none of my cities having this religion.
b) does Free Religion civic solves this "you have fallen under heaten religion etc."?
Thanks
Hello, all:
I'm a new member, so apologies if this is out of
place. I've played Civ4 a few times _ coming to
it straight from years of Civ2. I've a few frustrations,
I'm afraid, but maybe I'm being clueless. Anyway _
Comparison with Civ2: "If it ain't broke, don't
fix it" is my verdict.
1. Game simply isn't as much FUN. Simplicity of Civ2
stimulated imagination. Yes, Civ2's artwork is great _
but unnecessary.
2. Challenge has been taken away.
Examples _ (a) govt type; (b) war; (c) pollution
and corruption; (d) maker bias and editing of
civilisations.
(a) In Civ2, you pretty much knew your choices _
Democracy, Communism, Monarchy, etc. OK, one could
argue about interpretation of the names _ game
has a very American slant _ but still, in game
terms, you had clear choices: the more freedom
people have, the more money they may generate,
but the less they will willingly fight for you.
From the very start of a Civ2 game, you make a
clear personal choice about what type of ruler
you want to be: this has specific benefits, and
specific costs, which change your whole game.
In Civ4, the expansion of this into 28 or so
Civics ends up leaving you, oddly, with no
real choice _ because the way they're set up,
they make no real difference.
The irony is, when I first saw Civ4's splitting
of government choices into detailed Civics, I
thought it was a great idea _ and in theory, it
is. But for whatever reason, it doesn't work out
like that in actual game-play.
Giving the Pyramids the power of having all
"Government Type" civics is a LOUSY idea: takes
all the challenge out of the game. In Civ2, the
equivalent power is only given very late: with
Statue Of Liberty, I think it was ? Anyway, my point
is, I learned very early on to ALWAYS go for
building the Pyramids a.s.a.p. in Civ4, and
thereafter use either Hereditary Rule or
Representation. Virtually no penalty or
challenge. What's more, switching between the
"Government" civics makes very little
difference on the ground.
(b) As regards war _ as far as I can see, in
Civ4 it's virtually impossible to take an
enemy city if the two opposing civilisations
are within an ass's roar of each other
technology-wise. This leads to a defensive,
World-War-1 mindset
(c) The manual says (not in quite these words) that
the makers removed corruption, waste, and
pollution as big factors because too many
people were whining about them. Pathetic
decision, removing all challenge.
(d) I feel that the makers show a weird sort of
bias in their choice of so-called great civilisations
and leaders, as compared to Civ2's. Bluntly, I
don't see why the "American Empire" merits two
leaders while the Romans only get one. The "American
Empire" shouldn't even exist, really, given that
the USA was a breakaway from English imperial history _
it would be more proportional, in world history terms,
to merge "The English" with the Americans as "Anglo-Saxons". On which note, how on earth does Victoria
merit inclusion as a great leader ? By her time,
English monarchs didn't DO anything except sit on
the throne. What about Henry the Fifth, Cromwell,
or Gladstone ? I only like the last one, but they
were all major English figures.
Plus, I'm sorry, but how on earth does Mali get in
there as an important civilisation when the Celts
don't ? No disrespect to Mali, but in terms of world
history, they just didn't happen to be where the
world-changing action was. The Celts were: first,
they were the Iron Age movers and shakers in Europe,
second, Rome had to conquer them, in Gaul, to get
its Empire going, and third, when Europe sank into
the Dark Ages, it was Celtic monks who kept learning
(Latin, Greek, etc.) and writing alive, and spread
idea-bearing religion, which ultimately got Europe up
and running again as a civilisation. Regardless of your
personal opinions on Christianity or Europeans _ these
things *happened*.
Of course, I wouldn't care about stuff not being there if it was easy to make one's own changes _ it isn't.
The makers claim you can add a new Civ using XML _ you can't. I'm using Windows XP, so it's not me that's the problem.
In Civ2, all one had to do to make changes was some
simple editing of ordinary text files.
-----------------------------------------------------
Finally _ I've read the makers' end-notes in the manual,
about what they felt was "wrong" with earlier
Civ versions, that they wanted to "improve". I
reject this utterly as regards Civ2 (I can't speak
for other versions).
When all the smoke has cleared
away, the only real improvement has been the art
quality. Yes, Civ2 graphics were simple and almost
cartoonish _ a small price to pay for the most
addictive game I've ever played. Civ4 doesn't
even come close. Classic case of "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it".
Score: Civ2 beats Civ4 5-nil _ or 5-1 at best.
P.S. In fairness, there IS one thing I think
is great about Civ4 _ the religions.
I'm a new member, so apologies if this is out of
place. I've played Civ4 a few times _ coming to
it straight from years of Civ2. I've a few frustrations,
I'm afraid, but maybe I'm being clueless. Anyway _
Comparison with Civ2: "If it ain't broke, don't
fix it" is my verdict.
1. Game simply isn't as much FUN. Simplicity of Civ2
stimulated imagination. Yes, Civ2's artwork is great _
but unnecessary.
2. Challenge has been taken away.
Examples _ (a) govt type; (b) war; (c) pollution
and corruption; (d) maker bias and editing of
civilisations.
(a) In Civ2, you pretty much knew your choices _
Democracy, Communism, Monarchy, etc. OK, one could
argue about interpretation of the names _ game
has a very American slant _ but still, in game
terms, you had clear choices: the more freedom
people have, the more money they may generate,
but the less they will willingly fight for you.
From the very start of a Civ2 game, you make a
clear personal choice about what type of ruler
you want to be: this has specific benefits, and
specific costs, which change your whole game.
In Civ4, the expansion of this into 28 or so
Civics ends up leaving you, oddly, with no
real choice _ because the way they're set up,
they make no real difference.
The irony is, when I first saw Civ4's splitting
of government choices into detailed Civics, I
thought it was a great idea _ and in theory, it
is. But for whatever reason, it doesn't work out
like that in actual game-play.
Giving the Pyramids the power of having all
"Government Type" civics is a LOUSY idea: takes
all the challenge out of the game. In Civ2, the
equivalent power is only given very late: with
Statue Of Liberty, I think it was ? Anyway, my point
is, I learned very early on to ALWAYS go for
building the Pyramids a.s.a.p. in Civ4, and
thereafter use either Hereditary Rule or
Representation. Virtually no penalty or
challenge. What's more, switching between the
"Government" civics makes very little
difference on the ground.
(b) As regards war _ as far as I can see, in
Civ4 it's virtually impossible to take an
enemy city if the two opposing civilisations
are within an ass's roar of each other
technology-wise. This leads to a defensive,
World-War-1 mindset
(c) The manual says (not in quite these words) that
the makers removed corruption, waste, and
pollution as big factors because too many
people were whining about them. Pathetic
decision, removing all challenge.
(d) I feel that the makers show a weird sort of
bias in their choice of so-called great civilisations
and leaders, as compared to Civ2's. Bluntly, I
don't see why the "American Empire" merits two
leaders while the Romans only get one. The "American
Empire" shouldn't even exist, really, given that
the USA was a breakaway from English imperial history _
it would be more proportional, in world history terms,
to merge "The English" with the Americans as "Anglo-Saxons". On which note, how on earth does Victoria
merit inclusion as a great leader ? By her time,
English monarchs didn't DO anything except sit on
the throne. What about Henry the Fifth, Cromwell,
or Gladstone ? I only like the last one, but they
were all major English figures.
Plus, I'm sorry, but how on earth does Mali get in
there as an important civilisation when the Celts
don't ? No disrespect to Mali, but in terms of world
history, they just didn't happen to be where the
world-changing action was. The Celts were: first,
they were the Iron Age movers and shakers in Europe,
second, Rome had to conquer them, in Gaul, to get
its Empire going, and third, when Europe sank into
the Dark Ages, it was Celtic monks who kept learning
(Latin, Greek, etc.) and writing alive, and spread
idea-bearing religion, which ultimately got Europe up
and running again as a civilisation. Regardless of your
personal opinions on Christianity or Europeans _ these
things *happened*.
Of course, I wouldn't care about stuff not being there if it was easy to make one's own changes _ it isn't.
The makers claim you can add a new Civ using XML _ you can't. I'm using Windows XP, so it's not me that's the problem.
In Civ2, all one had to do to make changes was some
simple editing of ordinary text files.
-----------------------------------------------------
Finally _ I've read the makers' end-notes in the manual,
about what they felt was "wrong" with earlier
Civ versions, that they wanted to "improve". I
reject this utterly as regards Civ2 (I can't speak
for other versions).
When all the smoke has cleared
away, the only real improvement has been the art
quality. Yes, Civ2 graphics were simple and almost
cartoonish _ a small price to pay for the most
addictive game I've ever played. Civ4 doesn't
even come close. Classic case of "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it".
Score: Civ2 beats Civ4 5-nil _ or 5-1 at best.
P.S. In fairness, there IS one thing I think
is great about Civ4 _ the religions.
Okay, then keep playing The Deuce, and there is a forum dedicated to that game on this site for you to comment in, but do you have an actual question?
Ansive
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 390
Celts are in the game. The US are the highest purchaser of games, so the American empire needs to be there, not to mention the fact that it is a world power. Yes it's relatively new, but it does have it's history and culture.
War is more calculated, and you can always take cities with a good combination of units.
I haven't played Civ 2, but in Civ 3 corruption and pollution were simply annoying. Corruption is now called maintenance, it only costs money, you don't lose production.
Clear cut governments are boring. With civics you can chose what you believe in, what is more beneficial and fitting to the current situation and age.
Government, Legal, Labor, Economy, Religion. Why would you want your civilization to be stuck in one preset.
You're also forgetting improvements like unit promotions, specialists, great people, golden ages, combat odds, unit counters, city specialization, resource management (health / happiness), myriads of wonders (national too), random events and quests.
Oh, and, the Pyramids are usually a waste of effort for what they offer.
You should try the BTS expansion together with the BUG mode. It's one of the most complex and satisfying games I've played. If you think it's too simple and easy on difficulties starting with Monarch, my hat off to you.
War is more calculated, and you can always take cities with a good combination of units.
I haven't played Civ 2, but in Civ 3 corruption and pollution were simply annoying. Corruption is now called maintenance, it only costs money, you don't lose production.
Clear cut governments are boring. With civics you can chose what you believe in, what is more beneficial and fitting to the current situation and age.
Government, Legal, Labor, Economy, Religion. Why would you want your civilization to be stuck in one preset.
You're also forgetting improvements like unit promotions, specialists, great people, golden ages, combat odds, unit counters, city specialization, resource management (health / happiness), myriads of wonders (national too), random events and quests.
Oh, and, the Pyramids are usually a waste of effort for what they offer.
You should try the BTS expansion together with the BUG mode. It's one of the most complex and satisfying games I've played. If you think it's too simple and easy on difficulties starting with Monarch, my hat off to you.
@Ysevo - a few people do prefer II, it's true. Most prefer IV. However, it is a matter of what a person likes. Here are a couple of responses that may show a different point of view.
Welcome to the forums. Perhaps we can help your CivIV experience. It's a great game.
You say CivIV is more complex, but that II is more challenging with clearer choices. To my mind, if the choices are clear, the game is less complex. There are many more options to use in IV. Also, to quote the wisdom of II, "Trade (Caravans) breaks the game" There is no such game breaker in CivIV. The only thing that comes remotely close to this is the AP cheese victory.
Pollution and corruption were removed in favor of maintenance. Once you go up in levels, you'll find that having more cities will hurt you if you don't plan for it. All cities can be productive in IV, but they may not be worth building due to maintenance costs. You often have to make do with a smaller empire until you take care of the maintenance problems. You might need to move up a level or so to see the problems maintenance can cause. Pollution was just a pain in II and III.
You say all Civs are the same in IV. I think there's a lot more diversity in IV. You can't play all leaders the same way as you can in II. There isn't one "best" way. Stonehenge, for instance, can be very nice or worthless depending on your leader. Your tech path may change due to different leaders doing different things better.
You say building the Pyramids is an automatic win. I've never felt that. The cost of the Pyramids is so high that it really puts a damper on your early expansion and you will soon find the AI having more cities and production if you just go for Pyramids when it isn't appropriate. I often don't build the Pyramids because I need to expand. If I'm getting boxed in, I need to rush somebody and just forget the Pyramids. If somebody NEXT to me builds the Pyramids then I'm in great shape.
If you can't capture cities you aren't using siege. You need to take down the cultural defenses and inflict collateral unless you're playing a very low level. Your army should be about 1/3 - 1/2 siege if you expect to take down cities. Again, there is more strategy in IV, you can't just attack with your best and overwhelm the city.
Mali was put into the game to have more African Civs. Your argument would also apply to the Zulu. But having only Egypt as an African Civ doesn't seem good to me. Besides, the Celts have two leaders in CivIV and Mali only has one. Maybe you're playing vanilla? The Celts were added in the expansion packs with two leaders.
Civics offer a lot of choices. In IV you often have to "mix and match" your Civics. Universal Suffrage goes well with Free Speech, Representation makes Mercantalism almost worth while. Also, some leaders do better with certain Civics. For example, Organized leaders can exploit Corps. better so Free Market is better for them. One of the main Civic choices late game is Free Market/Corps. vs. State Property. CivIV veterans still argue about that. Organized also favors higher cost/higher benefit Civics.
Welcome to the forums. Perhaps we can help your CivIV experience. It's a great game.
You say CivIV is more complex, but that II is more challenging with clearer choices. To my mind, if the choices are clear, the game is less complex. There are many more options to use in IV. Also, to quote the wisdom of II, "Trade (Caravans) breaks the game" There is no such game breaker in CivIV. The only thing that comes remotely close to this is the AP cheese victory.
Pollution and corruption were removed in favor of maintenance. Once you go up in levels, you'll find that having more cities will hurt you if you don't plan for it. All cities can be productive in IV, but they may not be worth building due to maintenance costs. You often have to make do with a smaller empire until you take care of the maintenance problems. You might need to move up a level or so to see the problems maintenance can cause. Pollution was just a pain in II and III.
You say all Civs are the same in IV. I think there's a lot more diversity in IV. You can't play all leaders the same way as you can in II. There isn't one "best" way. Stonehenge, for instance, can be very nice or worthless depending on your leader. Your tech path may change due to different leaders doing different things better.
You say building the Pyramids is an automatic win. I've never felt that. The cost of the Pyramids is so high that it really puts a damper on your early expansion and you will soon find the AI having more cities and production if you just go for Pyramids when it isn't appropriate. I often don't build the Pyramids because I need to expand. If I'm getting boxed in, I need to rush somebody and just forget the Pyramids. If somebody NEXT to me builds the Pyramids then I'm in great shape.
If you can't capture cities you aren't using siege. You need to take down the cultural defenses and inflict collateral unless you're playing a very low level. Your army should be about 1/3 - 1/2 siege if you expect to take down cities. Again, there is more strategy in IV, you can't just attack with your best and overwhelm the city.
Mali was put into the game to have more African Civs. Your argument would also apply to the Zulu. But having only Egypt as an African Civ doesn't seem good to me. Besides, the Celts have two leaders in CivIV and Mali only has one. Maybe you're playing vanilla? The Celts were added in the expansion packs with two leaders.
Civics offer a lot of choices. In IV you often have to "mix and match" your Civics. Universal Suffrage goes well with Free Speech, Representation makes Mercantalism almost worth while. Also, some leaders do better with certain Civics. For example, Organized leaders can exploit Corps. better so Free Market is better for them. One of the main Civic choices late game is Free Market/Corps. vs. State Property. CivIV veterans still argue about that. Organized also favors higher cost/higher benefit Civics.
Danelius90
Hunter (of vegetables)
1. I find the complexity of civ4 very interesting. And in fairness you can get most of the way through civ4 without knowing it all in-depth.
2. a) you don't know how to use civics properly
b) you don't know how to war properly
c) Never played previous civs, but it seems that stuff like pollution didn't really add depth of play or enjoyment. My only comparison I can think of is on Age of Empires when you build a farm, when the farm is exhausted you have to tell the civilian to build a new one to stop him gawking into space. Not very tactical if you ask me, just plain irritating.
d) no comment, I'm not actually that much into history
I have added new civs to civ4 with the XML. I started to learn XML and within 2 hours I'd created 4 new civs. Check out a tutorial in the Creation and Customization forum.
You might just need to give it some time
@Ysevo - look into the mods, one good thing about Civ IV is a huge mod base to give you the civving experience you want. Plain Vanilla Civ IV isn't that exciting, I am totally with you there!
I just got Civ V to play with my friends and its another step WAY down that direction. Prettier graphics, flatter game play and one best path to take. AND you can't make a Mod to fix it and then play that Multiplayer!
So.... Civ IV mods are the way to go, I have a friend working on one right now that will be VERY hard and have five different tech paths (you can mix and match) that will give you five different choices as to play style - I haven't seen it yet, but been playing his precursor mod, so I know you will have an option for military production and one for trade to start with.... and you will have options based on the kind of land you have and the resources available to you.
Civ V has a lot less available to mod even, no religion, no spying, its mostly about happiness and strategic resources.
BTW, you skipped Civ III, it was a wonderful game, we played that a long time, esp. the Rise and Rule mod. However, since we are into the MP mode, Civ III is hard to hook up MP. Civ IV is ok and Civ V uses Steam (I hate outside controls over my gameplay!).
Be sure to get Beyond the Sword and look into the huge Mod choices available, you'll find you are hooked after a while.
I just got Civ V to play with my friends and its another step WAY down that direction. Prettier graphics, flatter game play and one best path to take. AND you can't make a Mod to fix it and then play that Multiplayer!
So.... Civ IV mods are the way to go, I have a friend working on one right now that will be VERY hard and have five different tech paths (you can mix and match) that will give you five different choices as to play style - I haven't seen it yet, but been playing his precursor mod, so I know you will have an option for military production and one for trade to start with.... and you will have options based on the kind of land you have and the resources available to you.
Civ V has a lot less available to mod even, no religion, no spying, its mostly about happiness and strategic resources.
BTW, you skipped Civ III, it was a wonderful game, we played that a long time, esp. the Rise and Rule mod. However, since we are into the MP mode, Civ III is hard to hook up MP. Civ IV is ok and Civ V uses Steam (I hate outside controls over my gameplay!).
Be sure to get Beyond the Sword and look into the huge Mod choices available, you'll find you are hooked after a while.
God-Emperor
Deity
That sums it up nicely.
Almost everything in your post was incorrect. This is clearly because, as you said, you have only played Civ4 a few times. Obviously, you are not very good at it and are playing on a low difficulty level (on high difficulty levels, going for the Pyramids will get you killed something like 1/3 of the time and cripple your military to where you get killed not too long after often enough to bump the "I killed myself by building the Pyramids" factor up to something close to 50% - it is just way too expensive to build; you would usually be better off if someone else built it before you put too much production into it and you get some "fail gold" and can spend the production on things that will keep you from getting wiped out instead).
You are also not playing the up to date version: the Beyond the Sword expansion. With Warlords and then BtS they added several civilizations and leaders. Rome, for example, has two leaders, as do the Celts.
And as the title of this thread is "Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions" I have to wonder what question you think you were asking.
Don't know, never played Civ2. But you say you have, so you'd be the one to answer it. Except you asked it...
You had heard of her before playing the game, hadn't you? So had I. Just about everybody else on the planet has also heard of her. That alone is good enough to get her into the game. She was also very influential in her time.
What about them? Elisabeth and Churchill are also available if you want someone else as leader for that civ.
The Celts did get in there. They even ended up with two leaders to Maili's one.
There is no question in there, but there should be: "How do I add a new civilization and/or leader?" Adding it is the easy part, doing the modeling of the new leaderhead is not the easy part, although you can go with a static image which is pretty easy. You can tell that it can be done by the large number of civilizations and leaders available on this very forum, over in the downloads section. There is an entire sub-branch of the forums called "Civ4 - New Civilizations" over in the " Civ4 - Creation & Customization" forum, where you can fund bunches of threads for new civilizations (over 450 threads). That includes a thread by cybrxkhan where he has been posting a new civilization with a new leader (sometimes more than one) every week (or so) - I think he's up to 38 new civs now. Clearly adding civs must be impossible. Or maybe it is just you.
ResevoirDog
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 34
I cant seem to figure out how to set a rally point for newly built unit...would same me alot of redundant clicking!
Danelius90
Hunter (of vegetables)
click on the city that the units are being built in (just one click) and shift+right click the tile on the map where you want them to go. There should be a yellow circle visible on that tile whenever you one click that city and see the tile.
To remove it one click the city and shift+right click the city tile.
Ghpstage
Deity
They do have a dramatic impact, though you actually have to plan around them.Ysevo said:
- Monarchy allows unlimited happiness at the cost of hammers to build units and gold for maintenance, and is also useful for diplomacy for extended periods of the midgame.
- Representation gives instant happiness in your core cities and makes specialists far more powerful.
- Police State is highly situational however, mostly useful if your drowning in war wearriness later in the game.
- Universal Suffrage is monstrous with a matured cottage spam empire and the Kremlin, potentially turning towns into 8-10
per turn tiles with the right civic and infrastructure setup. However the big downside is that it does nothing if you have no, or few towns.
As others have mentioned, the Pyramids are hardly without penalty. The cost involved is immense, without stone or industrious that 500
is equal to 5 settlers, or 14 Axes or 10 Horse Archers, grabbing them will leave you with fewer cities and less of a military. To make matters worse the only civic worth building them for is Representation as Hereditary Rule comes with a relatively early tech!Representation is not a newbie friendly civic either, it does require experience in city management and specialists to get real benefits from.
Far from being a no-brainer build, the mids are actually the biggest newbie trap in the game!
On corruption and waste, the replacement, city maintenance is vastly more effective at preventing the silliness of ring city placement and ICS that were all the rage in civ 3 (I don't remember back to civ 2 in any detail)
charlesb96
King
As someone else said, try some of the Mods. Once you play with the expansions and add the mods, there is no way you can say the challenge has been taken away. Rhys and Fall brings in EVERY civ at the proper time and you can build up one, then switch to the new one and build up something eles. Rise of Man (both of them) really changes everything, new Techs, new Civics, new wonders, new units, wonders do somthing different than you were used to. Even the religions have been upgraded so that each is more unique, has its own World Wonder and there are more religions to be had.
If you get bored with Civ 4 then you have not played the mods, that will keep you busy for years to come. There are even Mods that bring in Magic and wizards, Trolls and Ogres and Dragons, Skeleton and Undead Civilizations.
Similar threads
