Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[Roland Johansen]

Is this correct:
A city gains a defensive bonus from culture.
A city also gains a defensive bonus from walls and castles.
Only one of these, the higher, apply to any given battle (and is presumably the one shown on the map).
Walls and castles do not add to defense against gunpowder units (but do against cavalry and tanks).

Assuming I have all that straight, when I am shelling a city with bombard is it taking down both the culture and wall defensive bonus? I just see "defense reduced to 23%". Sorry if that's badly put, I'm tired.

All correct.

2. How does unit maintainance work? In Civ3 you were allowed a certain number of units per city, altered by the size of the city and your government type. For every unit above that, you had to pay gpt. How does it work in Civ4?

In Civ4 there's a number of free units dependent on the total size of your population (the sum of all your city sizes), it's called free support in the financial advisor (F2) if you mouse over the unit cost. The vassalage civic increases the free unit support. The pacifism civic causes an extra unit support called military unit support.

More about the subject can be found here.

How does collateral damage get applied? If the unit defending my stack against the suicide cat beats it handily, will other units still get damaged? If the defending unit has first strike?

Collateral damage is always applied to the stack, totally independent of the way the battle with the main defender develops. Collateral damage is applied to the defenders other than the main defender. The number of collateral damage hits is determined by the number of defenders and the type of unit doing the collateral damage (5 units get more damage in total than 2, an artillery hits more units than a catapult). The damage the collateral damage unit does is dependent on the current strength value of the collateral damage unit and the basic strength value (without compensation for hitpoints and defensive bonuses). The damage output is modified by the barrage promotion. Collateral damage can only reduce the strength of the defenders to a certain point, 50 hitpoints for catapults, 30 hitpoints for artillery.

You can read more about collateral damage in the collateral damage section of this strategy article.

A few points on when to use it:
You should use it against stacks of strong units (for instance those defending a city). It will reduce the hitpoints of many units and then they will be much easier to defeat for your other units. A reduction in hitpoints reduces the damage a unit does in each combat round, it reduces the chance it wins a combat round and the wounded unit cannot sustain as much damage before it dies.
You should not use it against a stack that only has one strong unit. The unit will not do collateral damage against the strong unit because it will fight against that unit. It will weaken the other units in the stack that you could already beat (this assumes that you have enough units to defeat the weak units).
You should use it to reduce defensive bonuses from cities.

Different people have different ideas about when a stack is weakened enough to be defeated with normal units. I read reports about people using massive amounts of artillery and losing them en masse to weaken the enemy. I myself use them somewhat more sparingly. I have some dedicated city attackers and use artillery type units when I think I might lose some of these city attackers. But if the city attackers don't need the help of collateral damage, then I don't use it.

 

[a4phantom]

Collateral damage is always applied to the stack, totally independent of the way the battle with the main defender develops. Collateral damage is applied to the defenders other than the main defender. The number of collateral damage hits is determined by the number of defenders and the type of unit doing the collateral damage (5 units get more damage in total than 2, an artillery hits more units than a catapult). The damage the collateral damage unit does is dependent on the current strength value of the collateral damage unit and the basic strength value (without compensation for hitpoints and defensive bonuses). The damage output is modified by the barrage promotion. Collateral damage can only reduce the strength of the defenders to a certain point, 50 hitpoints for catapults, 30 hitpoints for artillery.

Thank you for clearing that up, I figured that collateral damage would only apply in rounds of combat in which the attacker did damage. But even if my super cavalry with charge defends against the attacking cannon and destroys it easily, without being hurt in the process, other units in my stack will still be subject to collateral damage. If I'm understanding the above correctly, horse archers and cavalry and marines (with bonuses vs cats, cans and arty) are considerably less powerful than I'd thought, although since marines also charge a defensive seige weapon (the machine gun) they're not as diminished. Even Seals, whose first strike could enable them to defend vs. arty without a scratch, wouldn't protect other units. Now I understand the investment in suicide cats, which I've never planned ahead on using or used en masse.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Thank you for clearing that up, I figured that collateral damage would only apply in rounds of combat in which the attacker did damage. But even if my super cavalry with charge defends against the attacking cannon and destroys it easily, without being hurt in the process, other units in my stack will still be subject to collateral damage. If I'm understanding the above correctly, horse archers and cavalry and marines (with bonuses vs cats, cans and arty) are considerably less powerful than I'd thought, although since marines also charge a defensive seige weapon (the machine gun) they're not as diminished. Even Seals, whose first strike could enable them to defend vs. arty without a scratch, wouldn't protect other units. Now I understand the investment in suicide cats, which I've never planned ahead on using or used en masse.

I would like to change the civ4 collateral damage system a little so that artillery has a higher chance to retreat but the retreat chance is diminished severly if the opposing stack has cavalry in its stack. That way cavalry is very important in defending against artillery. Should be doable with the SDK (but I don't know how). It was the suggestion that I gave in the survey that Firaxis held for the expansion pack Warlords.

 

[a4phantom]

I would like to change the civ4 collateral damage system a little so that artillery has a higher chance to retreat but the retreat chance is diminished severly if the opposing stack has cavalry in its stack. That way cavalry is very important in defending against artillery. Should be doable with the SDK (but I don't know how). It was the suggestion that I gave in the survey that Firaxis held for the expansion pack Warlords.

I like that. Are they still taking suggestions? I have one idea that I haven't heard from anyone else: War weariness should be greatly mitigated if you spend several turns in a state of 'propaganda' or 'mobilization' that rallies your people against a country you are going to attack. Their leader is a tyrant, they insulted us, their land is your land, they are producing WMD, etc. Of course your victim will be told that you are doing this. If on the other hand you attack a nation with which you have a decent or better relationship without the period of propaganda, war weariness should immediately hit you very hard because your people do not understand why you're fighting them. This would add realism and balance, because as is you can declare war and cross the border on one turn and your victim has no way of knowing, whereas in real history mobilization of troops, logistics and public opinion usually preceeded war. Obviously that propaganda campaign would add a huge negative modifier to future relations, but it could allow war happiness for awhile because you've convinced your people that the cause is just and the enemy vile.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I like that. Are they still taking suggestions? I have one idea that I haven't heard from anyone else: War weariness should be greatly mitigated if you spend several turns in a state of 'propaganda' or 'mobilization' that rallies your people against a country you are going to attack. Their leader is a tyrant, they insulted us, their land is your land, they are producing WMD, etc. Of course your victim will be told that you are doing this. If on the other hand you attack a nation with which you have a decent or better relationship without the period of propaganda, war weariness should immediately hit you very hard because your people do not understand why you're fighting them. This would add realism and balance, because as is you can declare war and cross the border on one turn and your victim has no way of knowing, whereas in real history mobilization of troops, logistics and public opinion usually preceeded war. Obviously that propaganda campaign would add a huge negative modifier to future relations, but it could allow war happiness for awhile because you've convinced your people that the cause is just and the enemy vile.

I like this idea, with the proviso that all other nations with whom you have contact also become aware of your propoganda, as if you hope to indoctrinate your own populace, you couldn't really hope to keep it a secret..

In game terms, other nations would know you were massing in preperation for an attack, and would have a few turns to prepare for the worst themselves..

 

[mjs0]

I like this idea, with the proviso that all other nations with whom you have contact also become aware of your propoganda, as if you hope to indoctrinate your own populace, you couldn't really hope to keep it a secret..

In game terms, other nations would know you were massing in preperation for an attack, and would have a few turns to prepare for the worst themselves..

This should also give the other nation a 'casus belli' so they could launch a preemptive strike and themselves avoid the negatives of being the aggressor.

 

[a4phantom]

I like this idea, with the proviso that all other nations with whom you have contact also become aware of your propoganda, as if you hope to indoctrinate your own populace, you couldn't really hope to keep it a secret..

In game terms, other nations would know you were massing in preperation for an attack, and would have a few turns to prepare for the worst themselves..

That's what I'm after. It's unfair and unrealistic that you can backstab a friendly civ <i> with no penalty </i>.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I like that idea and I think it could be implemented in a balanced and fair way. Maybe there should be some monetary costs involved in this massive propaganda campaign, not sure.

However, the suggestion poll was a few months ago. Maybe you can suggest it for the second expansion pack (assuming a second expansion pack is created and they hold a suggestion poll again.

The suggestion poll was announced on the main civfanatics page, so you shouldn't have had to miss it.

Probably lots of good ideas were suggested by the people on this site, so I'm hoping for a great expansion pack.

 

[a4phantom]

I like that idea and I think it could be implemented in a balanced and fair way. Maybe there should be some monetary costs involved in this massive propaganda campaign, not sure.

Yeah, although they should be overwhelmed by the unhappiness cost of starting a war without it. Mobilization is expensive of course, there's a story that Kaiser William wanted to pull back from the brink of WWI and his military advisors told him too much had already been invested in mobilizing. Adding a cost would make it harder to use as a simple bluffing tactic too, along with the long term diplomatic hit with the targeted civ.

The suggestion poll was announced on the main civfanatics page, so you shouldn't have had to miss it.

Ha, I was living in a tent city outside New Orleans gutting houses. But Civ was always on my mind.

 

[bad-aries]

I am about to start the third game. I have a question about difficulty in custom games.

Say I want to set the difficulty to Chiefman. I could set it myself. However, I have seen all the AI player are in Noble difficulty. Does it mean I have to play with all the AI with Noble difficulty? Or they are just play as whatever I set to myself, and in this case they wil play as Chiefman?

Thanks.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Ha, I was living in a tent city outside New Orleans gutting houses. But Civ was always on my mind.

Ouch, that is hard. I hope you didn't take my remark the wrong way. I also hope that you and your relatives are doing ok now.

I am about to start the third game. I have a question about difficulty in custom games.

Say I want to set the difficulty to Chiefman. I could set it myself. However, I have seen all the AI player are in Noble difficulty. Does it mean I have to play with all the AI with Noble difficulty? Or they are just play as whatever I set to myself, and in this case they wil play as Chiefman?

Thanks.

If you set the difficulty level higher for yourself, then you're making the game harder for yourself. If you set it higher for the AI, then you're making it harder for the AI.

The AI is programmed to handle the game at noble difficulty level and won't play very well at other difficulty levels. So just leave the AI at noble difficulty level and only change your own difficulty level.

 

[a4phantom]

Ouch, that is hard. I hope you didn't take my remark the wrong way. I also hope that you and your relatives are doing ok now.

Haha not at all. And I was there as an Americorps volunteer, not a resident.

So I commited the classic blunder (marching on Moscow), and when I took it I tried to give it to Elizabeth. When I put it on the table, everything on her side disappeared - not turned red, disappeared. Can you not trade cities but only give them away, or is something else going on?

 

[Roland Johansen]

Haha not at all. And I was there as an Americorps volunteer, not a resident.

Ah, a noble spirit.

So I commited the classic blunder (marching on Moscow), and when I took it I tried to give it to Elizabeth. When I put it on the table, everything on her side disappeared - not turned red, disappeared. Can you not trade cities but only give them away, or is something else going on?

I believe that is the case, allthough I have not tried it. I don't think that the AI has a valuation routine written for cities. They don't want certain cities, so there is some form of valuation. But I don't think it is more sophisticated then 'yes' or 'no'.

Normally, you can ask for cities in peace treaties and then only one side can put something on the table. Maybe this is similar.

 

[a4phantom]

Ah, a noble spirit.

Far from it, I just didn't know where to meet girls after college. So what were the key suggestions? I'm assuming great generals, which I almost think they left out to justify an expansion. And the Zulus, those guys have been with Civ since the beginning. Think there's any chance they'll make artillery be artillery again instead of bulldozers? And is there an ETA for Warlords, you're the first I've heard of it although obviously I assumed . . .

 

[Roland Johansen]

Far from it, I just didn't know where to meet girls after college.

I hope you didn't tell the girls there that that was your reason for helping.

So what were the key suggestions? I'm assuming great generals, which I almost think they left out to justify an expansion. And the Zulus, those guys have been with Civ since the beginning. Think there's any chance they'll make artillery be artillery again instead of bulldozers? And is there an ETA for Warlords, you're the first I've heard of it although obviously I assumed . . .

Phew. I don't remember it all. There were some announcements on the front page which you still can find if you look for them (they're archived probably) and a search for 'warlords' in the general forum also leads to many results. I really can't repeat everything that was said in those discussions. Just look it up.

 

[criscusack]

All,

3 "newbie" questions (now that I've been knocked about a bit for posting such in other threads):

+ Am I insane, or should there be an arrow pointing from Masonry to Monotheism in the Tech Tree. Mono says (in the rulebook, and even in the Tree itself) that it requires Masonry. Selecting Mono puts masonry in the way, and even the printed map has the arrow there. Is it possible that the game programmers are imperfect??

+ What is the deal with the religion list on the upper right of a city screen? There are a lot of symbols. Obviously, grayed out ones you don't have in that city, OK. But then there are 2 other potential modifiers on the symbol: A little glimmer off to the right (means you founded it) and a box (means it's your state religion?). I founded Judaism, but the star of David icon has no glimmer. What's up w/that, anyone?

+ Also, since I'm on the topic, when you found a religion, is there any way to control which city gets it first? Barring control, is there any way to tell which will get it first?

TIA!

--CCC

 

[Samson]

All,

3 "newbie" questions (now that I've been knocked about a bit for posting such in other threads):

+ Am I insane, or should there be an arrow pointing from Masonry to Monotheism in the Tech Tree. Mono says (in the rulebook, and even in the Tree itself) that it requires Masonry. Selecting Mono puts masonry in the way, and even the printed map has the arrow there. Is it possible that the game programmers are imperfect??

Monotheism has the masonary icon in the top [edit]right of the box. That is instead of an arrow.

+ What is the deal with the religion list on the upper right of a city screen? There are a lot of symbols. Obviously, grayed out ones you don't have in that city, OK. But then there are 2 other potential modifiers on the symbol: A little glimmer off to the right (means you founded it) and a box (means it's your state religion?). I founded Judaism, but the star of David icon has no glimmer. What's up w/that, anyone?

Only the holy city has the star.

+ Also, since I'm on the topic, when you found a religion, is there any way to control which city gets it first? Barring control, is there any way to tell which will get it first?

TIA!

--CCC

It follows an algorithum that can be found here, basicly much less likely to be in a city with more religions, some propensaty to be in larger cities. So to get it to be in city X, give all other cities as many religions as possible, none to X and get X as big as possible. It is still not certain though.

 

[jayron32]

All,

3 "newbie" questions (now that I've been knocked about a bit for posting such in other threads):

+ Am I insane, or should there be an arrow pointing from Masonry to Monotheism in the Tech Tree. Mono says (in the rulebook, and even in the Tree itself) that it requires Masonry. Selecting Mono puts masonry in the way, and even the printed map has the arrow there. Is it possible that the game programmers are imperfect??

+ What is the deal with the religion list on the upper right of a city screen? There are a lot of symbols. Obviously, grayed out ones you don't have in that city, OK. But then there are 2 other potential modifiers on the symbol: A little glimmer off to the right (means you founded it) and a box (means it's your state religion?). I founded Judaism, but the star of David icon has no glimmer. What's up w/that, anyone?

+ Also, since I'm on the topic, when you found a religion, is there any way to control which city gets it first? Barring control, is there any way to tell which will get it first?

TIA!

--CCC

1) When you set up research queues, and select a technology you cannot research yet (like, lets say you pick monotheism BEFORE getting masonry) then the computer sets up the queue for you using the shortest possible path to get the tech you pick. It will start researching masonry first, then it will get monotheismThis may or may not be the "best" path. Unlike earlier versions of CIV, there are MANY MANY ways to work through the tech tree, with several ways to meet prerequisites for certain techs. You could, for example, one turn 1 select "rocketry" and the computer would set up a research queue to get you to rocketry the fastest. This method has 2 faults, however: First it takes the straightest path, which means you miss MANY techs that would otherwise help your civ in other ways and 2) It takes the shortest path through the tree AS IT IS, not counting side trips that may shorten your path. For example, you could get to Rocketry without researching, say, education. But education would allow you to build Universities and Oxford, increasing your research abilities and thus getting to rocketry ultimately faster than the shortest path. I usually never set up research queue, instead I try to plan ahead somewhat, but I still choose each tech depending on my situation at the time the tech comes up. For example, if Islam has not been founded, I might try to grab divine right early; but if someone has already founded Islam nad has several turns ahead of me in building Versailles, I would skip divine right and move on to another tech.

2) On the religion markers, the star (glimmer) means you founded the religion IN THAT CITY. Go to the city where Judaism was founded, and you should see the star.

3) It is supposedly random where a religion will get founded, but I have noticed certain trends:

a) Religions tend to be founded in the smallest cities first
b) Religions tend to be founded in cities that have the least number of religions
c) Religions tend to be founded in the newest cities

SOmeone may have worked out the algorithm for where religions get founded, but you'd have to comb through the forums to find it. The only way to guarantee a religion to be founded in a certain city is to have ONLY ONE CITY. Religions tend to be founded in the city that is least useful for you (for example Islam, usually the last religion founded, is usually founded in that small, backwater, desert city which you built only to cover a copper resource or something)

 

[bad-aries]

Hi,
I have a city which the population is 2. I built some farms and the citizens are working on it. However, the growth bar shown just nothing, not growing, staging or starving. So, what is that mean? How could this situation be triggered? And how should I fix it?

Thanks

 

[Harrier]

Hi,
I have a city which the population is 2. I built some farms and the citizens are working on it. However, the growth bar shown just nothing, not growing, staging or starving. So, what is that mean? How could this situation be triggered? And how should I fix it?

Thanks

That city must be building either a Settler or a Worker. Surplus food is added to the production of these 2 units. So you get no city growth whilst they are being built.