Strategies never obsolete

Bibor

Doomsday Machine
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
3,124
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
I've been back for several days on civfanatics forums and in three threads I see the same trend that could be summed up in something like "don't use that terminology, don't use this strategy - it's outdated".

I don't feel comfortable with this, for several reasons.

1. It's not helpful. I've been away for long, probably other people have been as well. If I reference a strategy that has been "outdated", it's because I don't know better. Yet. But we all have our ways of implementing new information into our gameplay and discussions. Dismissing old strategies outright is not helpful if I can't connect "the new" to old.

2. It's disrespectful. There's not a single player here who didn't learn at least one thing from the old masters. It took tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of hours to get to civ4 strategy where we are now. One, two or five new strategies are just the few top bricks in a very large pyramid. It was a process, people invested tremendous energy, and...

3. most strategies aren't outdated at all. Slapping a new sticker on mix of old strategies and rules, and stirring it a bit, doesn't make it "brand new and valid", just as the old ones aren't really "old and invalid". They were just written, designed and agreed upon to avoid making very basic mistakes.

Now that I'm reading this post I'm not sure if it's about (music) harmony or civ4. I guess it applies to both :)
 
Last edited:
I understand what you mean, but still I politely disagree with most of your points.

This is a strategy forum and we are here to discuss and share strategies. Maybe calling a strategy "outdated" is inaccurate and it should be called sub-optimal or simply bad. It is helpful to point out inaccuracies in other peoples thinking (or strategy) and there is nothing disrespectful in it. It's not a personal attack, it is an attempt to help others improve their game.

I agree with the headline, or at least with the way I understand it. A strategy doesn't obsolete, but of course a certain strategy can be proved bad or sub-optimal.

If your understanding of the game is "outdated" and you want to improve, you are in the right place. I suggest reading deity threads and watching Lain's YouTube-games. Happy learning! :)
 
I think if you want to play cIV on the highest difficulties, then there are the set few things that are pretty much the optimal ways to play. It is only natural that the strategies evolve and settle to something seeing that there have not been any balance changes for what, 10 years? I'm fairly surprised it has taken even this long..

Of course, if you are playing on difficulties under immortal you can pretty much just go full automatic workers from turn 1 and still wreck everything. I think TMIT might have done a youtube let's play doing that?

also related: my signature is from 2005? 2006? when the debate about which economy was the best was raging on :D
 
Civilization 4 has a new random map every time we press "play now". Thus, every game is, by, default, at least very slightly, different than any other game played by any other player.

On top of this, and why I love civ4 so much, is the actual game layer that has so many levers (at least I call them levers - choices you can make, hopefully you know what I mean) that you can play the same start in dozens, if not hundreds of different ways.

"Back then", if you want to call it that, many players spent thousands of hours and even more hours writing and discussing strategies. These posts, sometimes even PDF books, took the two aforementioned features of Civ4 seriously. A strategy, without providing numbers and context, means nothing.

Take for example the city upkeep post by Gato Loco. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-curious-cat-city-upkeep-explained.138473/

It might not be a strategy by itself - although it hints at certain optimal city numbers and distances - it's the comprehensive analysis of the mechanics that enables strategies to evolve from this knowledge.

Opinions by themselves don't mean to me much, not because I don't like them, but because I can't work with them. One-sentence strategies fall into the same category. Nothing to dislike - but nothing to work with either.

To put it into context, you can say "Quechua is #1 UU in game" and I will disagree. Or you can say "I prefer to play with Qeuchua", to which I can only agree.

A Quechua can be the best UU in the current game if:
- you actually have neighbors
- you want to capture workers / cities
- your targets are not Mansa Musa, Hammurabi or perhaps Sitting Bull.
- you have to worry about very early barb defense
etc.

In some other scenarios, perhaps Dog Soldiers, Holkans, Skirmishers, War Chariots, Vultures, Fast workers, are all better unique units for the task at hand, all coming with their own conditionals.

This is what I'm missing here right now.

Or, to quote @Zavior:
I think if you want to play cIV on the highest difficulties, then there are the set few things that are pretty much the optimal ways to play.

This was either true or false a month, a year, five or 10 years ago. There are truly no set things for optimal play, not even after 13 years. If we truly want to explore further, current strategies will have to become as well documented as those from "back then" so they can be built upon.
 
Last edited:
You can always argue that for a specific map doing the special thing x, y or z will be optimal. Nobody can ever argue against that and that is besides my point, I deliberately didn't give any specific example because of that. But doing this like whipping useful buildings, building wealth/research instead of inefficient buildings, bulbing key techs and using trade missions to upgrade units etc apply to pretty much every game.
 
Last edited:
This forum was kept active year after year by many of those peoples that you,
after coming back from those years with no posts, now criticize for their way of writing comments, tips & hints (cos many try always being helpful here, very very good place).
So..i think you are wrong.
 
I'm also rather against the term "Outdated", since so much of our strategies now are built on the trial and error (and, more importantly, success) of strong players throughout the long history of the game. However, when I do see that word being used, I think of it as: "Most players, out of the subset who are active today on the forums, have stopped using this strategy in most games in favor of [more new/optimal strategy]". Definitely not a personal attack or disrespectful, just a less involved way of explaining things (I'll explain).

Lots of strategies used today were evolved in more inconspicuous places, such as the discussion thread for an HOF gauntlet or by a certain team from some SGOTM game. That means there is often no well written article, and in fact the strategies themselves are sometimes intentionally obfuscated to prevent another player/team from using them before the completion of the gauntlet/SGOTM. Furthermore, since these players have already done intense research into their strategies and determined their strength, there is little incentive to start a broader discussion or article in a more centralized place. And going through all of these mini-strategies, research into mechanics, code snippets, etc. to write complete, cohesive and accessible guides is a herculean task (Think 150 pages of scattered SGOTM discussion corresponds to 1 page of well-written strategy article). Thus, unlike in the past, the players using newer strategies don't really have much to point to in the way of documentation, except personal experience.

So if a veteran player makes a quick response of "That strategy is outdated, try this instead", it's kind of a shorthand for "I've assimilated this newer strategy into my gameplay after learning about it myself, and gotten good results, but I cant exactly point you to lots of discussion or documentation about the strategy because that documentation is hard to find or simply doesn't exist". So it behooves the veteran player to try to find any discussion that exists so that others may also benefit from it as they have, or else start a more detailed conversation themselves. At the same time, it behooves the newer player to listen, to be willing to change, adapt, and relearn, but also to ask clarifying questions in the hopes of starting one of these discussions that future players can learn from and point to.

A final word from me: any player of any skill level can have a conceptual breakthrough, perhaps even one that reverses a newer strategy in favor of an older one. However, these are often quite rare, and trying to find them can directly conflict with the goal of playing better or moving up in difficulty. Most of us on this forum assume folks would like to move up in difficulty, and thus default to explaining a few "modern" strategies out of myriad possibilities since those are the ones we think will help the most. But if you are interested in exploring one of these other possibilities in the hopes of a breakthrough, that also has a place on these forums. The only "impossibility" that is a major source of frustration for those trying to be helpful is someone who wants to do both at the same time. For example "Help me move from prince to emperor, also I don't want to use slavery". And we must be careful to distinguish that impossibility from the similar "I play on prince, also I'm trying to develop a strategy where slavery isn't used", which is totally valid. Difficulty level is not a very good reason to discount someone's ideas.
 
I'll be a contrarian here and say that Bibor makes "some" valid points, or at least points worth discussing. He's an old member who is not trying to be a pita, although I think he got his feathers ruffled a little. Still, I think sometimes we are a bit too dismissive of others - me included. I don't mean we do that to deliberately be mean or whatever - no, most try to be helpful - it's just that we've been playing, learning and helping for years, so sometimes the short answer is the easiest answer. (ha..I usually tend to be quite verbose but I don't get as much into mathematical analysis). I think this is something Bibor should understand as well. We've been doing this a long time - for the many years he has not been around.

With that said, there are some quite solid strategies built over the years from countless hours of play on this forum as well as things like SGOTM, which is a fabulous laboratory for new ideas or fine tuning old ideas. Of course, there is much situational in IV, but I'd say there's a good template for success in most things....well, success never being a given.

I don't think anyone has the time or desire to write up answers to all the different scenarios when answering some member's question about something or other. All we can do is give the basic strategies that work. Unless, ofc, a more specific situation is described, which is sometimes the case. One can't expect one to write up a dissertation in answer to some dude's question every time.

I do agree that it would be nice to have some updated articles. There are some newer ones indeed, and very good ones in the sub-forum.

So, anyway, while I think Bibor makes some valid points - some in an idealistic sense, he has to take into account where we as players are right now, as well as the game itself.
 
Last edited:
I agree to some extent. on strategies. If I play certain civs and the map allows I will try to use their UU for fun. I do love units like CKN or Keshik . Same for the Roman Praets. So there are times when I will break the mould for a fun element in a game. Of course most of the time I try to play the map. What strategy will work best on this map? Which techs work best based on my starting position and land explored? Do I need an early war here? Should I rex peacefully? Shall I just attack my neighbour because I can because I love to use HA? of course some maps evolve to point where building your favourite units are just not practicle. Isolated starts? No iron/horse etc.

Everyone has a different style of play. I think mine is a touch too aggressive. i think where the game evolved is many players delved into codes, how whipping and over flow works. How to squeeze more out of the game and it's mechanics. How to understand the demographics screen. Also how the Ai play. It's this kind of detail and micro that has evolved over time. Tricks get passed on from player to player and game technique adapts. Should everyone play the way same way as some of the deity/immortal players do on here? Sure listen to their advice but maybe have fun too so the game is still enjoyable. Play to a level you are happy with.

I perhaps have spent too much time around SGOTM section of the forum. These games really enhance the way you play. The recent SGOTM was won in 74 or so turns. Albeit it started 2000bc.Some of the micro on those games was crazy. The ability to do micro and think ahead many turns. Many of the people here have been posting here for 5-12+ years. I was around in 2006. Gradually working my way up from Monarch. Lymond 10+ years. Mylene.Fippy 5-6+ years.Sampsa over 10 years. Some very seasoned civ 4 players post here now. Many have hundreds if not thousands of civ 4 hours behind them. That kind of advice is hard to find elsewhere.
 
I'm glad we opened this discussion. I'm not dismissing anything. I'll look up the SGOTM threads and I already started watching Lain's videos. Its only natural that constant play over the years evolved the style and quality of gameplay.

It's also easy to track and understand this if you're "in the loop". But imagine youself coming back after 5-10 years: you'd do the same - look up what you know and start from there. Perhaps it would be a "now very old" SGOTM game where at some page is hidden a strategy you forgot in the meantime. And if the future-you tries to plug into the current "feed" of information, it would be very hard if everyone was communicating in smileys (where every smiley has a meaning you don't know) and referencing floating points of information hidden within hundreds of pages of games created after you left :)
 
I do think the S&T forum has had, at least in the past, a horror of anything that goes against the common consensus. I can only imagine the reaction several years ago had someone assured this forum that a BC Space Launch was to be accomplished by spending production on Wonders for much of the game. :)
 
I do think the S&T forum has had, at least in the past, a horror of anything that goes against the common consensus.
Seriously stop making this forum look worse, we are doing just fine discussing stuff and most of us have nps realizing there might be some better gameplay out there than we are used to.
Not long ago i learned several tricks from Pedro, same goes for Lain and we are both among those super evil deity players, but instead of complaining "oh horror, somebody found something better than i used" we were happy about Pedro pointing these out.

If you have any hidden agendas, those are your problem..but there are none here among those of us who understand how this place works.
 
Yeah, seriously. I have never seen a forum with such a great atmosphere as S&T has had in the past year or so. Kudos to you all!
 
Here's a viewpoint from a considerably less seasoned player who has only hung around here for barely a couple years.

My two cents:

Perhaps its not correct to point to obsolescence, but instead how optimal a strategy is and view in that light. Optimization is, after all, why we strategize in the first place: to do better. A worse player like myself who basically fumbles about, mimicking better players and trying to reproduce play from strategy discussions on a forum I don't exactly frequent is never going to understand why a particular strategy may be considered "obsolete...." but a concrete example of what works better or worse in a given situation are pretty easy to grasp. Basically what Sampsa was saying.

Not just wanting to chime in with an "I agree" alone, I had a thought when Lain's stuff was mentioned, as he's an extremely good player. I, probably like many other who peruse his material on YT, watched Absolute Zero beforehand and you can see a stark difference not just in strategies employed, but overall approach and just a different mindset. Lain plays to win as often as possible, and does things like *gasp* teching Archery, something that is often derided in the meta as I came to understand it. AZ plays more the way he wants to, and is especially aggressive in most games, which can work just fine. The takeaway is Lain appears more meticulous and thoughtful while AZ comes off more with a "been there, done that" attitude which is not bad or anything in and of itself, but it leaves questions for a learning viewer when for instance they get to cannons extremely early, or when/why they lose. Both have posted losses and with AZ being a bit more flippant it gets handwaved away a bit as runaway AI, but with Lain he'll often go back and evaluate mistakes even before the game moves much further, commenting on the previous installment sometimes, even his mindset at that time.

I watched Lain play one of the IMO most arduous starts (small peninsula with practically no viable surrounding land) and *****-slap a fully mobilized modern AI in his Lincoln map, and it blew my mind. I never knew you could so easily (as he made it look) dismantle a fully expanded AI in modern warfare without nukes. AZ has been having a rather rough time with Civ4 in his latest attempts by contrast, call it being out of practice or whatever (which considering the time gap is plausible), but as several of them have been NC games that were the same set up for both of them I can't help but feel it's in the approach.

I don't want to appear to just be bashing AZ, I love his play (prefer aggression myself, coming from simpler RTS games) but given the eras in which each player has posted their work and how much some of the metagame has changed even since AZ's Civ 4 heyday, the rate of success associated (Lain even played out an older NC game, Kublai I think, that defeated AZ and won it, not just the recent ones), it appears his more headstrong approach back then is indeed not the optimal one even though he was basically able to make it work often. I understand that this is a trapping of using a results-based evaluation too, and AZ has also frazzled my brain too with amazing successes. But as a learning experience it seems to teach less.

My personal feelings regarding metagame strategy (which is dictated by popular opinion of the game's base) are conflicted and have some elements of what you suggest Bibor. Situational application and trying to solve a particular map as well as possible don't always go hand in hand. I can't express it clearly in context of Civ4 but in RTS gaming, particularly Starcraft, which has also not been rebalanced for almost a decade and has a hardcore base of extremely good players, the meta constantly changes to the point that it seems some new strategies get followed simply because they are fads; they aren't explained clearly, the goals aren't apparent, and the game is inherently unbalanced anyway so it further confuses one who was steeped in the scene back from years ago (around 2008-2009 in my case). In some ways applying certain strategies can feel like the player is just employing a gambit for hopeful positive result.

But when newer strategies are derivative, are designed and formulated using previous experiences and knowledge, and are then applied to directly counter or out-yield the previous strategies, I don't really see the issue of the meta declaring the old obsolete and moving on as a problem. Obviously RTS and TBS and SC/Civ4 are very different and this argument is not 1:1, but it's just a summary of the way I think it can be seen in that light. Somewhere along the line Courthouses were considered not as good as just building Wealth, and that strat was agreed to be obsolete. The old issue of "SE vs CE, which is better?" has largely been abandoned, but lessons learned about each were passed on. WastinTime showed recently that the fastest way to tech to the end of the tree is by abusing Strike and wonder fail-gold on a massive scale, of all things. Etc. Etc. I think the last example is particularly relevant because as of the last time I paid attention to it, WT and others were already starting discussion on how to improve upon it as soon as that game was done and posted up!
 
Oh dear.

I feel sorta responsible for starting this mess...probably shouldn't have started a message with "this is wrong" in any circumstance. That was my bad; I take full responsibility for making this place seem hostile.

But yeah, I feel like this forum has been nothing but helpful to players old and new - and that's speaking a lot from personal experience. That's all I have to say.
 
Civ 4 is so rich that all you can really do is identify patterns in your games / in other people's games that will give you a better overall understanding of the Game. "Strategies" posted here are only guidelines for you to follow when you're unsure which way to go, which later allows you to come up with your own conclusions and progress as a player. Therefore, there's no such thing as "obsolete" strategies, there's only good moves and bad moves, given a certain situation.

And for the record I've found that most people on this forum are pretty open-minded when it comes to trying new "strategies" and questionning their own understanding of the game.

If we truly want to explore further, current strategies will have to become as well documented as those from "back then" so they can be built upon
This, IMO, is wrong. When you reach a certain level of gameplay, each particular map is so different that you won't benefit much from pre-written, very detailed strategy guides. However, you will benefit from reading write-ups from other great games, where you might find similar situations and/or inspiration to try "outside-the-box" strategies.
And whether or not you have reached that level of gameplay yet, the best proven way to improve is CFC forums (no matter if you're playing, commenting or just reading).
 
This is a great section of the Civ 4 forum. There are many people who genuinely want to help and who are very friendly. Lymond is always going out of his way to help people trying to improve their game. He has the patiences of a saint. Same for many others who have posted in this thread.

You can't expect the Civ 4 forum to be similar to the CiV and Civ 6 forums as this game is nearly 12 years old now. So you may only get a few posts here a day. Where Civ 6 forums could have 30+ posts a day. Civ 6 is still being developed and updated by the developers so this is to be expected.

This shows just how good Civ 4 was as a game after the BTS expansion. I never really felt CiV and Civ 6 ever truly matched it as a game with it's depth for strategy. Especially on warfare and general micro. I guess Civ 6 still has time to improve with further expansions.

All strategy articles are useful and will probably help new players to raise their game. I think the players here have just evolved the way they play the game over the years and instead of new articles players have just learned from each other. As others have said people follow games on here and talk about strategies there and learn from the games you follow. You tube videos as many have mentioned are just as helpful at times.

I do think the Noble Club series is a great way for players on here to interact and see how others are playing the game. Same for SGOTM.

I think Bibor had a bit of a culture shock returning from CiV and Civ 6 to find so many players coming at the game from new angles. Of course I have not seen many of his games on here. Would be good for him to try the NC Lincoln game to get his feet back into the Civ 4 way of life.

One ironic thing about civ 4. Took me about 12 years to finally get a PC that could run it without crashing due to the memory use.
 
When you reach a certain level of gameplay, each particular map is so different that you won't benefit much from pre-written, very detailed strategy guides.

If you or one of the other veteran deity players attempted to write a large scale strategy guide you'd never get done :D
It's like you'd have to make a general statement and then explain it with a whole dissertation of ifs and buts.

Now if a lower level immortal/deity player like myself did it, I could get away with a much more compact version of it, but the problem is I know from these forums how little I actually know :D

In any case, a much more practical approach is what everyone always tells the new or old guys: participate in forum games and/or post your own save and have the better players advise you along the game. And really many people in the community do this with great patience since many years ago and are always willing to help no matter if you post 100 games. One of the reasons why these threads seem to be so enjoyable for a lot of the community is because very often fruitful discussion can be had and new approaches can be discovered even for veteran players.
Or in other words, I dont think there are any problems here ;)
 
Apparently, "in the past" has some sort of unique meaning on this forum that is not to be found elsewhere. I apologize for claiming anything was ever wrong with the forum and will now withdraw. Have fun.
 
Love this place. I'll put the game aside for a bit and read a thread here and get home and start a new game just to test it out. At least most of the time. I don't think I'll ever be able to motivate myself to do what WT did in that BC game. I tell myself I refuse to do that type of micro management but remember when I was younger moving 1000's of food caravans in civ II to set a population record game. And then dumb enough to do it again when my twin eked out my record. :lol:

And yes, I also prefer a more optimized strat vs. telling someone it's obsolete.
 
Top Bottom