Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

[gdoggcasey]

Hi there, sorry for the dumb question but here it goes. I recently started playing Civ 4 BTS and I love it. I've been watching youtube videos to try and figure out how to play so I can get off Warlord difficulty. Anyways, in these videos, I see that these players have a setting that shows these little pop-up pictures for all the resources nearby, and the pictures stay there as a constant reminder. I would love to get mine to do that but after checking out all the settings I wasn't able to. I'm sorry if this has been asked before, or if I am just being really dumb and missing something simple. Thanks in advance guys.

 

[Silu]

Hi there, sorry for the dumb question but here it goes. I recently started playing Civ 4 BTS and I love it. I've been watching youtube videos to try and figure out how to play so I can get off Warlord difficulty. Anyways, in these videos, I see that these players have a setting that shows these little pop-up pictures for all the resources nearby, and the pictures stay there as a constant reminder. I would love to get mine to do that but after checking out all the settings I wasn't able to. I'm sorry if this has been asked before, or if I am just being really dumb and missing something simple. Thanks in advance guys.

Welcome to the land of Civ!

Check the teeny-tiny buttons above the minimap in the lower right corner, the resource-showing is one of them. The shortcut to enable them is Ctrl+R.

 

[Quesdadt]

Hi,

2 questions re. Civ 4 BtS. I'm playing on a Mac, if that's relevant:

1) How do I sell a building? I had a coal plant, which causes unhealthiness. I've since built the 3 Gorges Dam, so I don't need it anymore, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

2) How do I remove a building from the production queue? I accidentally started to build the National Epic in city 1, but I actually wanted to build it in city 2. But when I try to build it in city 2, it obviously won't let me build it, because it is already being built in city 1. How do I stop it being built in city 1, so that I can build it in city 2?

Thanks in advance

 

[chegel]

1) Afaik it is not possible to sell buildings. But in your case only the better Hydro plant will be in use and the old plant will not produce any unhealthiness.
2) You have to click on a building or unit in the queue to cancel it. But this is only possible when there is at least one other building or unit (or wealth/research/culture) in the queue because it can never be empty.

 

[bestbrian]

Hi,

2 questions re. Civ 4 BtS. I'm playing on a Mac, if that's relevant:

1) How do I sell a building? I had a coal plant, which causes unhealthiness. I've since built the 3 Gorges Dam, so I don't need it anymore, but I don't know how to get rid of it.

2) How do I remove a building from the production queue? I accidentally started to build the National Epic in city 1, but I actually wanted to build it in city 2. But when I try to build it in city 2, it obviously won't let me build it, because it is already being built in city 1. How do I stop it being built in city 1, so that I can build it in city 2?

Thanks in advance

1) You can't. Unlike Civ II, you can't sell your buildings. Once built you're stuck with it, unless you go into WB and edit it out of the city.

2) In the building que, in the lower left part of the screen, click on the item you want removed; it should vanish from the que.

 

[Darth Fred]

Welcome to the land of Civ!

Check the teeny-tiny buttons above the minimap in the lower right corner, the resource-showing is one of them. The shortcut to enable them is Ctrl+R.

And a handy dandy little button it is!

F

 

[millahnna]

gdoggcasey, if you don't know about it another shortcut you may find handy is Ctrl-Y. This will show you the "yield" you are able to get from the various tiles. I tend to turn it on and off as I need it, but I'm guessing that if you didn't know about the resource button you may not know of that one either. Personally, I bought my game used without a manual so I played for about a year before I figured this stuff out. D'oh!

 

[gdoggcasey]

.Thanks Silu!! It works perfectly lol. Now its time to own the world.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Are axemen superior to swordsman? The only difference is 1 and +10% vs. Cities. But I think axemens +50% vs. melee units is far superior anyway. I usually don't build swordsmen in that regard, does anyone else feel the same way?

In single player, Swordsmen can sometimes be of use, especially when you are fighting against a city that is not defended by Axemen, or an opponent who does not have access to Copper or Iron.

In multiplayer, most experienced players almost never build Swordsmen. They are simply no good against human opponents, who always build a decent amount of Axemen (the AI is way too frugal with its Axes). Human players also wield their Axes much more intelligently than AI's on the battlefield. Basically, in multiplayer, short of fighting against a person unlucky enough to completely lack any Copper or Iron, Swordsmen are almost useless. Weaker in battles against humans and more to build expensive than Axes, why would you bother? Axemen are superior to Swordsmen in almost every regard in multiplayer. Just don't forget to build a Spear or two to protect them from roaming Chariots.

If I want a 6 strength unit in multiplayer, I'll build Horsemen - which gain the added benefits of being able to take advantage of 2 promotions out of the gate (with Stables) and 2 movement points. Plus, most human players tend to be much lighter on Spears than the AI, so if you surprise the right human opponent at the right time, your mounted army could steamroll through their lands quite easily.

 

[Samson]

In multiplayer, most experienced players almost never build Swordsmen.

Do you never use them as stack defence? Stength 6 and get defensive bonuses.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Defence against what though? Axes or Spears? Use Axes instead, they're better. Chariots or Horse Archers? Use Spears instead. Other Swords? Axes are better. Really the only thing they're better at defending against than any other unit are Archers and Catapults, and even then you could substitute another unit (like a Horse Archer - which you should use anyway if you're fighting Catapults). Personally, I would almost always rather invest my hammers in any other unit in multiplayer, rather than build a Swordsman.

 

[Samson]

Defence against what though? Axes or Spears? Use Axes instead, they're better. Chariots or Horse Archers? Use Spears instead. Other Swords? Axes are better. Really the only thing they're better at defending against than any other unit are Archers and Catapults, and even then you could substitute another unit (like a Horse Archer - which you should use anyway if you're fighting Catapults). Personally, I would almost always rather invest my hammers in any other unit in multiplayer, rather than build a Swordsman.

Catapults would be the obvious one. I have never played MP, but I would catputs against a stack. A Swordsman on a forest would be a lot better than anything early, and I guess you would use pretty big stacks against a human so 1 or 2 different units would be an advantage.

The other use would be when you have an archer who has enough more strength than the next best axeman in a city, so a swordman could be used against the archer. It quite offen happens against an AI with axemen.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I don't really like to build them just for the fact that the AI prefers swords, (as stated by LP) and the fact that I can make up for the minor strength penalty by more numbers due to their cheapness. I just think that they are overall superior and possibly the most game breaking unit in Civ IMHO.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Catapults would be the obvious one. I have never played MP, but I would catputs against a stack. A Swordsman on a forest would be a lot better than anything early, and I guess you would use pretty big stacks against a human so 1 or 2 different units would be an advantage.

The other use would be when you have an archer who has enough more strength than the next best axeman in a city, so a swordman could be used against the archer. It quite offen happens against an AI with axemen.

This is all true, but what you've got here are some very limited and specific circumstances in which Swordsmen are useful. This is really my point: Swordsmen are extremely situational, while Axemen are extremely versatile. In that respect, there's no comparison: Swordsmen are, in general, simply inferior to Axemen. I have little use for a unit which requires a specific circumstance to be useful, and which in every other situation is inferior to another unit (Axeman) which is cheaper to build.

 

[kcd_swede]

I agree with the general disdain for swordsmen. I would like to mention that some UU based on swordsmen are a whole other story, though.

 

[Sisiutil]

It seems I run counter to the trend. If I'm warring in the classical era I will usually make extensive use of Swordsmen. With their +1 strength and +10% bonus attacking cities, they'll get better odds than Axemen; they'll simply survive and win more city attack battles than Axes will. Even after you get Catapults (which have the same hammer cost as Swords), you'll be hard-pressed to field enough of them (especially when so many of them die) to guarantee wins for all your city raiders--so once again, the +1 strength/+10% city attack can make the difference between winning and losing a battle (and a unit).

And for all the talk about the hammer difference, Swords only cost 5 hammers more on normal speed than Axes. So yes, if you build 14 Swords you could have built 16 Axes. But with their lower city attack odds I'm betting you'd have lost those two extra Axes, whereas more of your Swords probably survived.

I agree that Axes are more versatile, though. No stack of Swords should be without at least one Axe and Spear for protection, and I'll also use that Axe/Spear combo to defend the cities I've taken. And I don't play much multplayer, but playing against humans instead of the AI requires a substantial adjustment of strategy and tactics anyway.

And, picking up on what kcd_swede said, regardless of where you sit in this debate it's a whole other story when playing as Rome...

 

[bestbrian]

Just as an aside: One of the very simple changes that Phungus implemented in the Legends of Revolution Mod was to reduce the strength of Axes from 5 to 4. This simple move made Swords much more appealing in the early game, and changed alot of the early dynamics.

 

[CivIVMonger]

Just something to think on: Do you think there should be an era in between Renaissance and Industrial? From the end of the Renaissance, (Probobly late 17th century) to the begining of the Industrial era, (late 19th century/early 20th) is about a 200 year gap. It really doesn't matter, but I'm a little curious to find if anyone else noticed that.

 

[Sisiutil]

Just something to think on: Do you think there should be an era in between Renaissance and Industrial? From the end of the Renaissance, (Probobly late 17th century) to the begining of the Industrial era, (late 19th century/early 20th) is about a 200 year gap. It really doesn't matter, but I'm a little curious to find if anyone else noticed that.

It wasn't that long a gap. The renaissance is commonly judged to have lasted until the 17th century, while most historians peg the industrial revolution as starting in the 18th century--so maybe 100 years. Not really long enough for another significant historical period, I don't think.

 

[CivIVMonger]

It wasn't that long a gap. The renaissance is commonly judged to have lasted until the 17th century, while most historians peg the industrial revolution as starting in the 18th century--so maybe 100 years. Not really long enough for another significant historical period, I don't think.

Yes, you're right. While Civ hasn't always been historically accurate anyway, it doesn't actually have much difference. I just said that because it seems strange at first.