Things you thought when you were a noob

When I was a noob, I bumped year-old threads.
Seriously though, I've never actually gotten an email for a thread subscription in ages, I've long stopped doing that.
So if you feel the urge to say something in a thread like this, please start a new one.
 
I never built siege thinking it was a waste of time. No wonder I was frustrted when my knights kept losing to fortified longbows.:lol:
 
Almost always used great people to start Golden Ages (because everything else you could do with them was rubbish of course). Except GEs, which were always used to hurry wonder production because wonderwhoring was definitely my thing :p
 
1) Sent 4 tanks and 4 infantries to Isabella's domain, thinking it would be sufficient to take over her entire primitive empire. Next turn -> Isabella sent 50+ conquisidors at me.

2) Never used siege to take down cultural defenses, thinking 1 rifleman should be sufficient in taking on 3 longbowmen with city defense II

3) Start a nuke war with 3 ICBM (luckily, it was during the vanilla tutorial game with a pre-astronomy Gandhi)

4) Tried to out-tech the A.I. peacefully in Prince and avoided any early wars before rifles

5) Built armies consisted of 4-5 units

6) Refused every demand of A.I.

7) Never cared about religion thinking they are all just thematic stuff

8) Never used organized religion because free religion's obviously the best

9) Built roads over every tile in early game thinking a tile's yield can only be received if there's a road in it

10) Built farms whenever I could

11) Never razed/gifted any city regardless of how useless they are

12) Never used state property because American game producers would generally make communism very repressive and useless

13) Never took Monty's threats seriously when he was a neighbour
 
I know I thought that farms on blank (as in without farmable resources) terrain improved health--& I was doing the opposite, as I chopped the remaining forests in my capital.

I also remember the avoidance of non-modern civics because of morals, & I thought that cottages could grow & become a separate city.
 
1. Thought cottages would stop crowding.
2. Thought a small, high-tech army would keep the phsycos away.
3. Thought a caravel would carry military.
 
Always chose a Civ that started with Mysticism so I could found Buddhism or Hinduism.

Try to found as many religions as possible.

Delay getting Steel because I had better things to research.

Never chop - I wanted the health. Never rushed anybody either. Also didn't want to war before tanks and bombers.

As a noob, some of these were disguised because I did build workers.
 
Oh yeah, one more: I never used Slavery, for a few reasons:
1) I thought "Sacrificing population? No way!"
2) I thought it was an evil and unjust thing to do.
3) I didn't know how - I couldn't find the "hurry production" button. I had to Google it to find out where it was.
 
The first time I played civ iv a friend let me borrow it, and I hAdn't read the manual, so please excuse the idiocy I am about to write :)

1. I didn't know that tile improvements couldn't be worked outside bfc, and built them everywhere
2. I didn't know what the bfc was
3. I didn't understand the happiness/pollution, how to manage it etc
4. I automated everything
 
1) Sent 4 tanks and 4 infantries to Isabella's domain, thinking it would be sufficient to take over her entire primitive empire. Next turn -> Isabella sent 50+ conquisidors at me.

Yeah, the Civ4 rule of thumb is, "spearman beats a tank may seem ridiculous, but 50 spearmen beats a tank is a guaranteed WIN!" You have to plan around that.

2) Never used siege to take down cultural defenses, thinking 1 rifleman should be sufficient in taking on 3 longbowmen with city defense II

Use spies. They die less often.

3) Start a nuke war with 3 ICBM (luckily, it was during the vanilla tutorial game with a pre-astronomy Gandhi)

It's usually over in my games, before nukes. I'm totally clueless on nuke strategy.

4) Tried to out-tech the A.I. peacefully in Prince and avoided any early wars before rifles

There *can* be some advantage to avoiding early war, and hear me out with all the IFS okay, there are important caveats not to disregard here:

a. IF... you got a huge amount of land that you REXed into in the opening game and your slider is still pretty damn low by mid-game.
b. IF... you already did an early war or rush and crashed the economy so bad you still need to recover.
c. IF... you got DoWed early and it took desperate measures and unnatural acts to fight off the aggro civ and regain the cities you lost.
d. IF... for whatever OTHER reason your cities lack a reasonable array of infrastructure to optimize their unit output. I'm not talking about city walls in a back city here, I mean like marketplaces where they give resource happy bonuses so you can grow and work more tiles, etc.
e. THEN... (note all the previous IFs first here)... then it can be more prudent to improve the condition of your war machine before going to war. My general rule is that there has to be at least 2 cities running at optimal military output for their tile yields and potential bonuses, etc. Other cities can still be working on infrastructure if (there's that "if" again) there are some older units previously built up for potential early war that can still be used in conjunction with the modern units for future upgrades or "collateral damage sponging".

5) Built armies consisted of 4-5 units

Some stacks only need 4-5. I've gone to war with huge stacks sometimes only to find on average 3 defenders in a very long series of cities, not uncommon with a tech whore like Mansa. ESPECIALLY along a coast where naval units can bombard the city defense (or late game if air units can do the job) then it's more optimal cost-wise to send a stack in at just the amount of city raid units needed to take the city. And if earlier on you launched the war with a stack of 50+, later on in the war it's better to split them out into multiple stacks to seize AI cities in parallel. A fast war is a successful war. Gives more time to fight more wars, elsewhere.

6) Refused every demand of A.I.

Unreasonable demands make sense to refuse most of the time. Monty wants Rifling for free. He's on your border. What are the chances he WON'T use it against you? Do you feel lucky?

7) Never cared about religion thinking they are all just thematic stuff

Religion has benefits but spreading it has prohibitive costs. I've blasted over 10 missionaries at a city before as it refused each time to spread the religion there. Those hammers could have converted to coins in WEALTH those turns and drawn more benefit than even the game-long benefit of 1 coin/turn with a shrine.

Shrine-whoring is only slightly less n00bish than wonder-whoring, when you think about it. Especially if you're trying to throw your beakers into religion techs instead of techs that matter, and GPPs into prophets instead of scientists and engineers.

8) Never used organized religion because free religion's obviously the best

Early game the tradeoff is the diplomatic hit if you're running the "wrong" religion, as well as the potential tradeoff of the fact that if it's someone else's shrine, you have to give that AI a 1 coin per turn bonus for each city's 25% hammer bonus, which isn't enough to make it "not" worth it, but it's a slight bit of rain on the parade to consider. When it's Monty coins it'll mean a few extra knights in his renaissance stack against you; when it's Mansa it'll mean he gets even MORE run-away-techish. Drink responsibly (the OR kool-aid). Flipside is, if it's an Apostolic Palace religion, there's no excuse in the world NOT to spread it, for the votes (those Palace votes for you to give away a city or stop a successful war, are KILLER!) And if you have to universally spread that religion, might as well get the hammer boost for it.

Mid-to-late-game, that extra 10% research comes in handy after a Liberalism slingshot and suicide Internetting, to "catch up" on tech and then use superior human strategizing and city output, better core war machine, to go own. It can sometimes mean the difference between attacking Rifleman cities with other Riflemen, or, ...infantry.

9) Built roads over every tile in early game thinking a tile's yield can only be received if there's a road in it

I used to think in Civ2 terms that the road would give a commerce bonus, lol.

10) Built farms whenever I could

Would have made you a natural for SE's hehe.

11) Never razed/gifted any city regardless of how useless they are

That was a hard habit for me to kick too. "If the AI saw a reason to build it there, it had to be worth it!" My answer to myself from a more experienced player's viewpoint: "NO". Burn baby burn, or gift baby gift (tundra, etc.)

Exception: early game sometimes the AI have a secret knowledge that something key is there like the only oil on the land mass. I hold off on razing in those cases, and gift (or liberate) later if they truly ARE worthless.

12) Never used state property because American game producers would generally make communism very repressive and useless

Hopefully if you're sitting on 10+ mining resources and 10+ sushi tiles, you don't flip to SP?

13) Never took Monty's threats seriously when he was a neighbour

LOL... uhm... yeah. Been there done that. With Aggro AIs you're lucky if they even bother to make a threat, they just saddle up and ROMP.
 
I had some screwed up thoughts about the game as a noob.

-I didn't know what a BFC was or what it meant to work tiles, so I built and improvement and a road on every single tile in my entire empire.
-I thought you needed more than one way to get between cities in case someone destroyed one of the roads, so I always built 2 roads to a city before I began improving it
-I thought you didn't need many cities. I remember playing as Greece on a continents map with Louis and building a my capital in the middle of the continent, Sparta in the north at the mouth of a river on the coast, a city in the south on a river in the middle of tundra and ice, and a city on the west side on the end of a 1 tile wide penninnsula blocked by a mountain. I thought it would be impossible to take because it wasn't connected to land becuase of the mountian.
-In that game I kept building single units and sending them to Paris, unable to figure out why they'd get destroyed everytime. After I'd send one unit every couple of turns, I'd get peace, then DOW when I got a new unit type and think I would own him wiht it.
-I didn't think you really needed all of your cities close together. I built Jerusalem as my second city on a Earth map as Greece, then I built one somewhere in Europe, and was already blocked off in all directions. When I reached the Americas, I built one in Panama, but couldn't improve it because these stupid Barbarians kept coming at my city every turn.
-I thought that I needed to be Christian everytime so that all of my citizens would go to heaven. I'd beeling mysticism, polytheism, preisthood, build the Oracle while teching masonry and monotheism, then use my free tech for THeology.
 
I thinked that servitude was a pretty good civic... I found slavery and chaste sistem useless :p
 
When I played civilization I for the first time, I had no idea about anything as you can guess. I even remember it was with rome. I started with my settler and didn't know what food, production or anything was. I saw a few tiles of land surrounded by water and thought that would be great for defending the city, so I moved the settler there and built my first ever city in civilization!!

I also remember in civI when I first saw a city of size 11 from the AI. It was london and I was thinking, omg 11, how is that possible. I still kept looking for geografically defensible locations for my cities
 
First game I played was on settler and I thought I was a tactical genius because I swept the AI with mass tanks vs crap medieval units.

Then I played Noble and I got owned hard.
 
When I first got Civ 4, not using slavery. Not because of moral reasons, but because the added unhappiness and loss of population seemed too high a price to pay. Then I came to Civfanatics and learned how to use it properly :goodjob:

Until quite recently I wouldn't run theocracy if I had captured 2 holy cities and wanted to spread the religions to all my cities for shrine income, because I thought it would stop me spreading one of them :blush: Then I read something about gifting missionaries.... "ohhhh so it only stops OTHER CIVS from spreading it to me."
 
I remember trying to build the pyramids no matter what so i could get the free civics. I remember attacking another civs city at the very begining of the game with my only warrior, thinking that 1/2 times i would win, not knowing what defense points were and then getting owned. I would try to always found christianity, and if i didn't, i would go to the wb and make my capital the holy city. also remember trying to take over the world with only three of each unit (ex. 3 spearmen, 3 axe, 3 sword etc.), except siege, would have six. also remember thinking that if you won the space race victory, you would be able to build space colonies.
 
This is my third civ game, (2,3,4) So I was never TOO noobish. But still some things:

1) I couldn't figure out where my empires money was going early on. My economy just kept getting worse, and no amount of expansion seemed to help.

2) I tried to found a religion as my first priority. Even if I didn't start with Mysticism. I'd go as deep as Theology just trying to get my own religion.

3) I could build Rifleman very early, because of my amazing tech powers. Rifleman baby! Of course, I only had warriors and archers defending my cities... So when Montezuma or whoever else decided to attack me, I'd always get frustrated and quit.

4) I never chopped a tree down just for the production. I mean, why waste the health and hammer?
 
Back
Top Bottom