Tips for People Who Hate Civ 4

[dh_epic]

So, what you're saying is, Civ IV, though it will crash your system, is superior to Civ III, which did not. Gotcha. Thanks for the tip.

First off --

Crashing your system isn't inherent to Civ 4. I bet a patch will be out soon. I think it was a bad move to release the game before Christmas. And the end result is the game won't really feel complete until December, when things are much more patched up.

Secondly --

Civ 3 DID crash your system. It took many patches to make Civ 3 work.

Unfortunately, you just have to be patient. It's working great for me, but I can understand how it isn't for you. Hang in there.

 

[KevinTMC]

There are multiple strategies that work in this game. I've seen people win with them all, at high difficulties too.

That right there--the fruit of a whole lotta play-testing and balancing--is the single greatest improvement in Civ IV.

And it's not just that there's a greater variety of strategies that can win the game. It's also the fact that most or all of these strategies can also yield a loss, if they're attempted in the wrong conditions.

Brilliant.

So brilliant, in fact, that when the game crashes to desktop once every hour or so, I don't get upset...I just reboot, take the opportunity to get a glass of water or use the bathroom or whatever, and resume.

(Now if the game were dying on me every ten minutes or so instead, well that'd be a bigger problem...but I've been lucky enough to have reduced my problems markedly by trying a few carefully-chosen tech tips from the forums.)

-- Kevin​

 

[drexvenor]

I actually strayed too far from CivIII strats in my first game of CivIV. In CivIII it as all about having the most units for war. Stacks of doom worked best when they were overwhelming. I knew they were trying to decrease the number of units so that the game would be faster. So, I was not building a large military. I was using combined arms but just not many thinking I did not need many. Decided to test the combat system and invaded a neighbor. I discovered that I was using way too small an army. I took one city but quickly lost momentum due to the resistance I was facing.

Let it be known that you can use less units in CivIV than in CivIII but be warned: Do not try to do war on the cheap. Make sure you have all the units you need to counter the enemy units and make sure you have reserves.

It makes war more an exercise in intellect than in brute force. Which is great for people that love intricate strategies.

 

[Greencardman]

This is just a side note, but I rolled back my Ati driver to the previous version, and haven't had a crash since. Its been so wonderful, because like you i was putting up with it cause I like playing the game. But man, no more reboots. I'm in heaven!

 

[lauer]

Lauer: A good technique, but one that needs to be prudently applied. For a city with excess food, those 2 hammers per turn for 100+ turns are much more valuable than a single 30 hammer burst.

Very true.

That's why I suggested to read the worker chop related threads. They contain a plethora of very good information, which cannot be easily summarized in 2-3 sentences. The decision, to chop or not to chop, has to be made taking into account your style of play, the early game strategy, your neighbours, the level of forrests you want to retain tor reap their benefits later in the game (i.e. when lumbermills become worthwhile), and so on.

The beauty is that you can have a very successful early game without chopping at all. It's no killer, must-have strategy, only an option.

 

[AER]

WOW!

I followed some the guidelines in this thread (few cities, varied army, bronze early) and my score went through the roof. I started a 'great plains'/small map, and owned it up:



It was cool. I am a relative civ newb (I sucked at civ III, and pretty much at civ IV until that last map ). I guess I will have to up the difficulty now!

I know, most people get this score every game, it was partially luck, etc etc , but I figured it would add to the thread by showing that these ideas work.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Man that article is brilliant DH_Epic. I confess that I fell into the trap of playing like Civ3 (up to a point) and am now paying the price-though at 1100AD I still only have 5 cities (one of them captured from barbarians). The fact is I am LOVING the way in which I have to change my strategies in order to win-and the fact that the strategies I love best (small nation, perfectionist) are now able to work as well! As for the game crashing, well I get that happening maybe once per game session now (usually about 2-3 hours in), but got a lot more when I had ATI's Catalyst 5.10c drivers. Once I rolled back to my original drivers, the crashing problem pretty much vanished-so guess who I am blaming for the problem?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[RichardMNixon]

My problem is that just because its new and different, doesn't necessarily make it better. While I like the idea in concept (once you got too many cities in civIII, they were more annoying to deal with than they were useful), I think 3 cities ruining you is way too drastic. It pretty much killed war. If gaining new territory makes you weaker, whats the point? Even if you eventually reach a point that gaining land is profitable, by that time I'm best friends with everyone and my shrine is raking in cash from all of their cities, so war still isn't profitable. I think the limit should be closer to 8 or so.

 

[kulgan]

This has been the most informative article I have read in relation to the differences between Civ3 and Civ4. It seems the key difference is Strategy and that's important to me. I've not yet gotten CIV4 but in anticipation I have been reading these forums to come to understand the kinds of things I should do to make the game more enjoyable for me. With this article I can throw away all the "winning ways" that I learnt for Civ3 and concentrate on the game that I want to play. Thank you.

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks, everyone, for the positive words. I do think this is the best game of Civ ever -- and it's because there are many ways you can play and win. It all depends on your opponents, your starting location, and your talents...

I think 3 cities ruining you is way too drastic. It pretty much killed war. If gaining new territory makes you weaker, whats the point?

I can understand how you might get this impression, but it's not true. The game has changed from "Bigger is always better" to "Bigger is eventually better". The key to growing large is you need to have the economy to support new cities.

War is still very much possible, and still gets you an advantage. One key is you can't have long wars due to unit maintainance, so war must be short but focused. Even more important is that you can't use conquest to fuel more conquest -- you need to stop to consolidate at certain points. Only repeating the fact that war must be short and focused.

Even if you eventually reach a point that gaining land is profitable, by that time I'm best friends with everyone and my shrine is raking in cash from all of their cities, so war still isn't profitable.

This is probably by virtue of the way you play that you're raking in cash by shrines. But even if someone is the same religion is you, it doesn't mean you shouldn't kill them. You still gain from conquesting them, and it doesn't affect the money in your shrine one bit. War still is profitable -- it's just that you don't need it to win the space race.

 

[denyd]

BTW: Anybody else notice that the barbarians research stuff? When I was about to attack one of their cities I noticed it said Researching: Calendar before I attacked. I suppose if you left a barbarian city alone long enough it might even reach the point of acquiring nuclear weapons.

 

[Gnarfflinger]

Organized is a useful trait. The problem is that you do need something of an early land grab, but don't go overboard either. The most important thing is getting resources and having Cities available to build your armies when it's time to fight...

 

[DaemonDivinity]

There's some things I don't like about Civ IV, but having played the original, II, CtP, III, and IV, I gotta say IV is hands down the best. Civ II rocked cause it felt like the original Civ just revisited and improved. CtP and III had some interesting features but to be honest they just didn't feel at all like the same idea. They felt somehow more like games with more focus on detailed complex combat and little bits of randomness but didn't seem to build on the older games at all. Civ IV though feels like II, just improved. Not just a game, but an interactive simulation. Like II, combat in IV is straightforward, but the monotony is gone. The game has a reasonable interface. It seems to level the playing field so individual empires can only be outright dominant if they have attained all advantages. Attention was paid in detail to cultural effects and simulating them.

But here's the kicker. The way Civics work now rocks. That I think is the single element that makes Civ IV unique and downright the best.

 

[Silver Marmot]

I tried many of those bold strategies in my first game (settler). I still won, but not by much.

 

[perryrutherford]

I have to say Civ IV is much better than Civ III... when it first came out. It took me a week to switch to CTP2, but by the time C3C came arround the gameplay went from a 3/5 to a 5/5 [IMO]. Where I might give Civ IV 4/5 for gameplay. It looks and sounds all nice though. I estimate Civ IV will get its wings too when I've quadrupled my CPU speed and RAM and pick up the x-pack.

 

[narmox]

BTW: Anybody else notice that the barbarians research stuff? When I was about to attack one of their cities I noticed it said Researching: Calendar before I attacked. I suppose if you left a barbarian city alone long enough it might even reach the point of acquiring nuclear weapons.

where did you see that?

Are you sure their city wasn't on top of spice or something that required you to build a plantation and the popup said "Research: calendar" cause you didn't have it yet?

 

[denyd]

I don't have the saves anymore (I had to re-build my system and have yet to re-install Civ IV), but I'm pretty sure that in the banner below the city name was a technology name. The barbarian city site was on a plains near a river and a hill, but no special tiles. Once I get it re-loaded and add in the patch, I'll check it again.

 

[a4phantom]

I don't hate Civ4, just the way artillery works. I do love that AI Civs don't give out their techs as easily as they used to, it was like competing with a research consortium to try and stay ahead in Civ3. So how do you know when you're ready to build more cities without choking on maintainance? I've only played one game, on only Warlord or whatever the second level is called now, and it kept telling me (even after all land was claimed) that I could afford a settler, does it do that at higher levels? Are there other ways of knowing? I'm also glad to hear about science overflow, I don't juggle tiles but I have adjusted my slider. Does overflow apply to buildings and units as well in Civ4?

 

[eric_]

It makes war more an exercise in intellect than in brute force. Which is great for people that love intricate strategies.

Totally! You do need sufficient numbers, but you can do a lot more with careful application of an army weaker than your opponent's than you could in previous civs.

Diplomacy, while much more frustrating sometimes, is much more challenging and plays a serious role in how well you do.

Did anyone find that difficulty ramped up too quickly in Civ III? I found it to be a bit of a let down. It also wasn't as intuitive as II was and IV seems to be so far.

 

[eric_]

Daemon, I totally agree with your overview of Civ III. Once I played IV for the first time I felt like III was more like a beta for that. Like they were testing new ideas in III and implemented them more completely in IV.

I think Great People, Religion, and Civics are all equally important to the significant improvment of the game.