Sulla's Civilization IV Walkthrough

[jakswan]

Very nicely done, although I think you'll be seeing a lot less hits when the game ships.

Must have taken some time, thanks very much.

 

[Sgt Grimes]

Absolutely brilliant, and a really informative insight of the game we're all gagging to get our mitts on!

Thank you so much for that Sullla.

 

[Feet]

Upload the next part already![/europe]

 

[Panzer Ace]

Awesome site and tons of info. Keeps me occupied while I wait for 3-DAY SHIPPING ......it's free so ....******* tricked me!

 

[ekanata]

1. Does Gandhi taking a good move by inventing more that one religion?

2. In Civrules page it was said that an iron mine provide 4 additional hammer and that an iron deposit won't be revealed until a certain technology is discovered. Does it mean if later an iron deposit is discovered on your city square, you'll lose the potential 4 hammer by not able to mine the city square?

3. To build iron consuming unit, do you need to just connect road/river to iron square or do you need to build mine too?

4. Will you demonstrate 'slavery' and show us its related information? (like people-hammer convertion ratio, remaining turn until the city happiness fully recovered, etc)

Thanks Sulla With your walkthrough we could skip the game's tutorial phase.

 

[bipboy]

thx Sulla, I　dont' have the game but your walkthrough comforts me a lot

 

[prscormier]

Wow! Friendly units can share a square even if they're not in an alliance or anything. Was that common knowledge before? I'm not sure how it will affect gameplay. Do you think if one side declares war, all the share squares immediately start a battle?

 

[mossmonster]

Wow! Friendly units can share a square even if they're not in an alliance or anything. Was that common knowledge before? I'm not sure how it will affect gameplay. Do you think if one side declares war, all the share squares immediately start a battle?

Wow, assuming if that's the way it is then collateral damage attacks against 'the' stack could sure get interesting.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Once again, big thanks for this Sullla-I can't imagine how difficult it was to drag yourself away from the game long enough to actually enlighten us to this extent ! Three great things which are really coming across are:

1) The ancient era appears to move quite slowly.

2) Now, if the earlier eras worked like they did in civ3 #1 would be a BAD thing, however, the second thing I noticed is just how many strategic choices you have from the outset of the game. Far, FAR more than you had in Civ2 or Civ3-just in terms of terrain/city improvements alone. Not to mention tech choices in relation to civics and religion.

3) Researching technology-in the Ancient era-now seems to be a VERY big deal because, unlike in civ2 and civ3, you can't just go around and collect the other half of the tech tree from your neighbours.

4) How you treat your neighbours in the early part of the game seems to be a MUCH bigger deal than in civ3-where how you behaved seemed to have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how they treated you later on!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

Three great things, Aussie? Thought of a fourth while you were typing then forgot to update your count? I've done that myself.


If Sulla's hits drop off because some readers went out and got their own copy and are too busy living through their own walkthroughs to read the rest of his... I don't think he'll mind.

- Sirian

 

[oxonian2001]

I'd be surprised if the dropoff is really that severe. Speaking for myself, I really can't get away with playing Civ4 at work. Reading a walkthrough, on the other hand...

 

[mossmonster]

Aussie,

In ref. to #3 it still remains to be seen as the needed techs to do diplomatic tech swaps haven't been discovered yet. They may become important once they are allowed.

My wild guess is that if England continues to adopt Sulla's religion, and with their poor starting position may be a weak civ in the first place, causing them to be willing to ally with him. Allies may be willing to trade techs at reasonable rates.

I'm really looking forward to the next installment as his presentation is unique.

Fine job Sulla!

 

[Melendwyr]

Dang it... I already found a typo in the game. In Victoria's introductory statement, that should be "God commands us to give aid".

 

[southafrica]

Dang it... I already found a typo in the game. In Victoria's introductory statement, that should be "God commands us to give aid".

What about "WE are Victoria..." doesn't matter though! LOOKS GREAT!

-SA

 

[oxonian2001]

Fortunately, typos are simple enough that even I could write a mod to fix them. I expect that the "Perfect English" mod will be available within two weeks (one if we're lucky).

EDIT: @SA: ever heard of the "Royal 'We'"?

 

[mossmonster]

Dang it... I already found a typo in the game. In Victoria's introductory statement, that should be "God commands us to give aid".

That may be meant to be that way. Old, upper-class English is different. That sounds somewhat like the way Shakespeare would say it.

In RL Victory always spoke of herself in the third person as she and the Kingdom were one. She said we, never I.

 

[southafrica]

That may be meant to be that way. Old, upper-class English is different. That sounds somewhat like the way Shakespeare would say it.

In RL Victory always spoke of herself in the third person as she and the Kingdom were one. She said we, never I.

One more reason for me to keep my contempt for the royal family...

-SA

 

[Melendwyr]

The problem isn't the plural - it's the lack of 'to'. If she had used 'we', referring either to all the people or merely herself, it would have been fine, because the 'we' would have been part of the commandment. It's permissable to drop the word 'that' before we (God commands that we give aid) in standard English.

But 'us' can only be used with "commands (noun) to".

 

[VonTed]

Very well done. I am giddy with excitement.

 

[mossmonster]

The problem isn't the plural - it's the lack of 'to'. If she had used 'we', referring either to all the people or merely herself, it would have been fine, because the 'we' would have been part of the commandment. It's permissable to drop the word 'that' before we (God commands that we give aid) in standard English.

But 'us' can only be used with "commands (noun) to".

Shakespeare would leave out 'to' in his sentences sometimes as well. I know it sounds awkward to our ears, but think of the King James Bible for examples. Many bible quotes also sound funny for the same reasons. English is a messed up language and adding traditional upper class traits to it only makes it worst.