I just picked up civ IV because my future son in law and daughter picked up Warlords for me. I still haven't learned to play either Civ III or IV worth a darn. I just played the tutorial and now I am ready to jump in and give it a try. Would someone recommend a leader to start with and type of map to get etc. to start for my first real game.
Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions
- Thread starter Civrules
- Start date
[AR]Nestor
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2006
- Messages
- 9
Thanks, and I finally found your intermediate guide:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4426546
that explained a few other things for me as well.
Julius Caesar of Rome and Cyrus of Persia are very strong conquerors, but they might spoil you. Isabela of Spain is very good for cultural victories. Mansu Mansa of Mali of Mali is good for Space race victories.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Hi a4phantom.
I took a look at your game. You're apparently a far more aggressive player than I am. I see that stack of swordsmen and your worker building a road towards Cyrus. It's not looking good for him. I guess that you'll build some catapults and then destroy him. I would advice city raider 1 catapults. Those are likely to survive an attack if the defence bonus has been bombarded away. And then you can give them the accuracy promotion. 4 accuracy catapults can bombard any level of defence in 1 turn. That leads to fast painless conquest. Or are you planning to just take the losses of a few swordsmen?
I would probably have invested more resources in expansion and growth. I would claim the silver resource and build some more and bigger cities before I would attack. You can become far larger than your neighbours without even attacking them because of the position you were given on the map. But that's just a difference of style.
I see that you dislike archers. You have not build a single one of them. I agree that axemen are better units. They can defend better against swordsmen (but not really better against other units), and they can counterattack. Archers can't really do that. But archers are cheaper and thus can be build faster allowing you to use the resources for other stuff. You could use archers in cities that are not going to be attacked and use some chariots or something to move quickly from one trouble spot to another using your road network. But it's good to have axemen in cities that could come under attack.
A religion is a good way to get the first border expansion. Your capital has a religion and with organized religion you could spread it without building monasteries. At present it takes you one turn to research organized religion. Leptis could use the first border expansion to get to the wheat in its second ring. The religion would also give you +1 happiness in the cities that would have it and +25% hammers for constructing buildings.
You don't have enough workers according to my standards. But that could have to do with the fact that you usually are attacking someone by now and capturing workers. I don't know, I'm not that aggressive.
How did you get so much money? Did you sell some technologies?
You can get some technologies in trade. I don't see a reason not to do that.
Carthage:
It has build a lighthouse in the past. The lighthouse is giving it +1 food per turn for the investment of 60 hammers. I think I would have invested the hammers in a worker or settler or something like that.
It is using the 'no growth' option while it can grow fast to a much bigger size and use good tiles. I would allow it to grow to size 9 and use the floodplain and grassland river cottages. If it grows to size 10, I would pop rush something (preferably for 2 pop and then let it grow back again).
Hadrumetum:
It has build a market in the past. The market costs 150 hammers, while the library costs 90, one gives a 25% bonus to gold, the other to science. You can run a much higher science rate than 50% without a deficit. So I don't see a reason to first build the market before the library. Is it to prepare for higher costs when you conquer some cities? Even then, you could have build them in the other order. Library first would have been better.
You have a lighthouse in the city that looks as if it has been useless up to now. It might be useful in the future.
It's no use to build stuff that won't help you now or in the near future. Expansion would have been better, I think.
Good move on farming the silk.
In general good tile improvement in these two cities.
Utica:
Needs a worker to improve the land. Chop the forests and use poprushing for production. Later in the game, you can use watermills and workshops (especially with state property) for production. Build cottages on the floodplain and the grassland river sites.
The market that has been build in the past is a very expensive building for such a small low commerce city. But if you would add the cottages, it would be ok. Note that the market is useless until you can't run 100% science anymore.
The courthouse is also not giving you a lot for its cost to build.
Kerkouane:
Why did you farm the grasland? A cottage on a floodplain would have produced a better tile.
Leptis:
This city has been without a worker since its founding 10 turns ago, not good. There isn't any worker going there any time soon it seems. An unimproved tile is far less efficient than an improved tile.
It is building a library to give it +25% research? It doesn't have any meaningful commerce so that is not that useful. Is it maybe to get a border expansion. It would be more efficient to do that with a religion. If you do want to get a library there, then I would chop rush + pop rush it. There are some nice forests there.
A granary first is mostly a good strategy. Get some growth going in that city.
Hippo:
It's a large city, but half the tiles it is using are not improved. The city could use an additional worker. There is a cottage there that is not being used and you are now building a cottage at a better spot (next to a river). You should have build them in the other order.
If you build a cottage on a forested tile, then first chop the tile and then build the cottage. That way, you get the hammers sooner. The only reason not to do that would be if you're using the tile and want the 1 extra hammer from the forest while you're building the cottage.
Chop all forests here and use mines for production. It's good to see that you're preparing to irrigate the food resource here. But it is still a while before you get to civil service, so there's no need to do that now.
You placed your cities in such a way that there are some areas that are a bit small for another city but a bit large to never ever use. I drew some fat cross borders around your cities and then you can see what areas I mean (see attachment). I personally hate to lose good tiles and I also dislike cities with big overlap. But I don't see how that can be avoided now. I usually plan my cities a way ahead so that this does not happen. Maybe you don't care that much about not ever using some tiles.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/You_AD-0300.CivWarlordsSave
Roland Johansen
Deity
I think the lack of workers is hurting you. Just for comparison, I'll upload a screenshot of a game of mine at 320 AD (close enough to the date of your game). I have 14 workers at that time, while you only had 4 in 300AD. It's not completely fair as I have a large section of jungle to the south which needs to be chopped and thus I need more workers but still. In the screenshot you can see that the land is further developed.
More workers.JPG
More workers.JPG
Attachments
Thank you very much. I know that I get behind the curve on workers, that's something to work on. I also go for optimal city locations to the point of not working a lot of land, but I remember you saying that working more cottages offset heightened maintainance costs. For the last several games I've forgotten that state religion provides culture or I would have been building missionaries instead of libraries to expand frontiers. I did indeed switch over to Organized religion, and although that army was intended for Cyrus as you guessed I ended up marching east to China because they were my only non-Tao neighbors and had impressive wonders. Then Peter attacked me despite our common religion, and I took a few of his minor cities and got some cash and his world map in the truce, but he converted to Buddism. My next war will also be against him, Cyrus is rescued by his wise choice of religion and Peter's stupidity.
It's now 1300 and I've just won the race to Liberalism and Economics. I've done a much better job than usual of tech trading, usually I have a bias against helping anyone advance technologically. Mostly due to its location closer to the other civs, I've made Utica my military city despite the absence of hills, so I'm building watermills and Heroic Epic and have settled a Great Instructor there, and when I can I'll build West Point there as well. I'm going to build both Oxford University and Wallstreet in Carthage, and National Epic in Beijing where the Chinese left behind some wonders. Possibly because of my excellent starting location for settlement, I am quite a bit behind my normal pattern of conquest, having only conquered one neighbor and bruised another who attacked me.
It's now 1300 and I've just won the race to Liberalism and Economics. I've done a much better job than usual of tech trading, usually I have a bias against helping anyone advance technologically. Mostly due to its location closer to the other civs, I've made Utica my military city despite the absence of hills, so I'm building watermills and Heroic Epic and have settled a Great Instructor there, and when I can I'll build West Point there as well. I'm going to build both Oxford University and Wallstreet in Carthage, and National Epic in Beijing where the Chinese left behind some wonders. Possibly because of my excellent starting location for settlement, I am quite a bit behind my normal pattern of conquest, having only conquered one neighbor and bruised another who attacked me.
Interesting. I see that you are not bothered to have cities with overlapping crosses, and that indeed I need a lot more workers.
How is relative military power determined? In Civ3 it was something like "twice the offensive power of all your units, plus the defensive power" but in Civ4 there's no attack/defense strength distinction, just a maze of bonuses.
OscarWildebeest
Prince
Is this what lies behind the way otherwise friendly AI civs suddenly cancel a trade deal on you?
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Sometimes, yes. Another reason that can happen is if the trade route gets cut off--say, by the cancellation of an Open Borders agreement (if there's a civ in between you), a war, a city flipping, and so on. Same thing if the resource gets pillaged or flips.
Roland Johansen
Deity
It seems that you're cruising to victory.
I typically settle the best spots first, but leave some room for cities to be placed inbetween these best spots. A city of size 2-3 with 1-2 well developed cottages can provide more than enough commerce to make a low profit, especially in the late game. Not that I'm saying that it's a good idea to build such a city. There are so called oppertunity costs (you can do better things with your resources), but a small city is not a useless one. It would be rare for me to not eventually settle a city site that can only ever use 8 tiles (desert and mountains not counted). I will fill all the other better spots before this one, but this one will also be filled, eventually.
One can argue that it might be better to build some units and conquer enemy cities (like you're doing) before one settles a minor city. It all depends on how minor the city is and how difficult the conquest is going to be.
These cities will all be able to use 17, 18 tiles at least. Yes, there is some overlap. But if two cities share 2 tiles then it means that they both can't use one tile and thus still have 19 left. It will take a long time before cities reach a size of 17-18, so it will not be a problem before that time. And after that time a city using 17-18 tiles is not that much more inefficient than one using 20 tiles.
But I can have many more cities on a piece of land than you can. Maybe 50% more cities. That means 50% more civic and city upkeep but also 50% more hammers and commerce production.
In the end, it is a difference in style and you should just build your cities wherever you want to. You're building a civilization in the way that you like to.
The bonuses and promotions are not considered when determining the military power of a nation. The following War Academy article describes how military power is calculated: The Inner Workings of the Demographics Screen Explained. Scroll down to the section about 'soldiers'.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Roland, a4--respectfully, and I'm not trying to play mod here, but do you really think this discussion belongs in "Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions?
It's a good discussion, so it deserved its own thread!
It's a good discussion, so it deserved its own thread!
Markus5
Code Monkey
If I get Warlords, will I still need the Civ IV disc to play?
I'd like to put leave one disk at home to play and carry one with the laptop.
I'd like to put leave one disk at home to play and carry one with the laptop.
Roland Johansen
Deity
Roland, a4--respectfully, and I'm not trying to play mod here, but do you really think this discussion belongs in "Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions?
It's a good discussion, so it deserved its own thread!
You're right. These questions aren't of the newbie kind, but the answer was rather quick.
Serious:
I personally think a discussion of a game shouldn't be in this thread while a question about city placement and space between cities could be in this thread. It's not a crime to do it once, but it shouldn't become the standard.
motherboard1
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 59
Can I block an enemies trade routes by blocking his ports?
I know I can cut off a cities Iron/Copper access in the early game, by destroying roads, or sitting on his Iron/Copper mines, but in the later game Im wondering if it is possible to prevent a player from simply tradeing for these resources
This stems from a plan I tried to execute, where I initiated a War by moveing armies onto my opponents Copper and Iron mines to prevent him from produceing more units dureing that war.
All of the other players were either unwilling to trade with him, or only had one source of Iron/Copper for themselves
but as soon as I took his Iron/Copper mines, the only other player that had plenty of those supplies suddenly has good relations with him, and I found he is now produceing Units that require those metals.
So it leaves me to wonder, is blockading his ports an option? it really doest matter since Im far past that part of the game now, but Id still like to know.
Also, a player has trade routes with another by land if those players are connected by roads/rivers I assume and can I sit a unit on a river route to prevent trade or access to a resource?
I know I can cut off a cities Iron/Copper access in the early game, by destroying roads, or sitting on his Iron/Copper mines, but in the later game Im wondering if it is possible to prevent a player from simply tradeing for these resources
This stems from a plan I tried to execute, where I initiated a War by moveing armies onto my opponents Copper and Iron mines to prevent him from produceing more units dureing that war.
All of the other players were either unwilling to trade with him, or only had one source of Iron/Copper for themselves
but as soon as I took his Iron/Copper mines, the only other player that had plenty of those supplies suddenly has good relations with him, and I found he is now produceing Units that require those metals.
So it leaves me to wonder, is blockading his ports an option? it really doest matter since Im far past that part of the game now, but Id still like to know.
Also, a player has trade routes with another by land if those players are connected by roads/rivers I assume and can I sit a unit on a river route to prevent trade or access to a resource?
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
You just need to have Civ IV installed; provided you don't launch vanilla Civ, you can just bring along the Warlords CD as you indicate you want to.
No, neither method of cutting off trade works in Civ IV. The only real way to perform a naval blockade is early in the game when trade routes cannot cross ocean squares; even then, you have to have the right geography to do it.
The only other option is to go to the Civ that's trading metals to your enemy and demand that they stop it--which is, as you may have noticed, hit and miss. You could always pillage their metals, but obviously that could involve war.
Markus5
Code Monkey
Excellent. Civ IV vanilla at home. Warlords on the road. Or vise versa. Thanks. Time to do a little shopping, methinks.
I sure don't understand this game. I just got my butt waxed, playing a the easiest level. I wanted to try and build up my military but it just didn't work. I was playing as Julius Ceasar and Napoleon came in and took over all of my cities one by one. I have read the manual but I guess I still don't get it.
the easiest level is settler.
I believe at this level, the AI never attacks.
So you must be playing another level.
Anyway, you don't ask questions so you won't get answers
Maybe you should try to play a very agressive game to begin with?
Maybe you should look at sisiutil's early ALCs (the one playing hatchepetsuh) to see how an agressive game can look?
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
Thanks for the interesting analysis of the State Property civic, Roland. 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that cottages aren't great - because I agree that they are. I'm just pointing out that it's probably not a good idea to use them solely for rush-buying items. I know that it is certainly not possible to have an empire consisting entirely of low-production cities which have everything rush-bought for them, and still keep up technologically. Having cities which can support themselves production-wise is important too. Balance is the key, in my opinion.
Are you certain that rush buying is so good though? Realistically, it is not as if you can put every gold piece earned by your towns towards rush buying buildings throughout your entire empire. A lot of it will have to go towards your research, or else you will fall behind. Some will also have to go towards your treasury, to prevent your civ from going into debt. If you are planning on a cultural victory, some may also need to go towards producing culture. Is the amount of gold that is left over after all of those portions have been taken out of it really worth more than the hammers one could get from a mined (rather than a cottaged) hill, for instance?Yes, I've said that the combination of the cottages (towns) and universal suffrage and free market is virtually unbeatable. Your memory is too good.
But, I can defend both of my statements by saying that the watermill is a special improvement that cannot be build in many spots, so the cottage is still the best general improvement...
Also, the watermill is only really good in the late game after replaceable parts, electricity and state property boosts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that cottages aren't great - because I agree that they are. I'm just pointing out that it's probably not a good idea to use them solely for rush-buying items. I know that it is certainly not possible to have an empire consisting entirely of low-production cities which have everything rush-bought for them, and still keep up technologically. Having cities which can support themselves production-wise is important too. Balance is the key, in my opinion.
Perhaps if you provided some more specific information, or a savegame from somewhere in the middle of the game in which you lost, we could provide more help. As your post is now, there is little that anyone can offer to help you, because we simply don't know enough about your game to be able to be of assistance.
Freddegredde
Chieftain
Hi,
I have a question about the games scoringmechanics. How does the game calculate the final score? Wich parameters are considered? It seems to me that the finishdate has some big influence on the scoring. A majority of the top-scoring-games seems to have a finishdate around 1000 AD. I do realize that mapsize, difficulty and such thing influence the score, but what about achievments during game-session? Oppoents achievments?
Btw, these forums are amazing when it comes to helpful information!
Freddegredde
I have a question about the games scoringmechanics. How does the game calculate the final score? Wich parameters are considered? It seems to me that the finishdate has some big influence on the scoring. A majority of the top-scoring-games seems to have a finishdate around 1000 AD. I do realize that mapsize, difficulty and such thing influence the score, but what about achievments during game-session? Oppoents achievments?
Btw, these forums are amazing when it comes to helpful information!
Freddegredde
Similar threads
