Tips for People Who Hate Civ 4

[DariusI]

Well, I disagree. If I'd know my opponent has no way of getting resources for swordsmen and Axemen, I'd go for Swordsmen. They're simply stronger. More expensive yes, a little bit.
And ur idea of attack before able to make swordsmen is not an imperative at all. Just attack at the right time. There's no way of making sure ull be able to attack an opponent very early, because starting conditions can be very harsh. And often it's first survival, and only then attacking. If u have the possibility to make an early attack, sure go for it. But often it's not the case. In the beginning AI on Deity especially has so many advantages it's difficult to just attack them so fast. U need to wait until u have the advantages of Swordsmen and/or Axemen.
Axemen are in general warfare better. Once again we all knew that, but in the case of taking on archers I'd definetely take Swordsmen, although it hardly matters... the archers will be chopped to pieces anyway!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

 

[Zombie69]

Since i won't convince you with words, all i can say is try it and you'll see. Start a Deity game and attack an AI properly with very early, chop rushed and pop rushed axemen. Restart the game, then attack the same opponent with swordsmen. You'll see how much easier it is with axemen when done properly.

I too once swore by swordsmen, until i saw from experience that i was wrong and that axemen are indeed much better.

 

[DariusI]

I too once swore by swordsmen, until i saw from experience that i was wrong and that axemen are indeed much better.

Zombie soixante-neuf, ur such a bad listener. I can hardly count the number of times I've already told u that I am perfectly aware that axemen are usually better for attacking an opponent...
This however, does not take away that iron is thé crucial resource in the early game!

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

 

[Zombie69]

How is that? If axemen are the best unit for attacking opponents (which, actually, you didn't make clear before this post, and you seemed to be arguying the opposite), then what makes iron so crucial? If iron doesn't allow for better units, then what exactly does it do that copper doesn't do?

 

[DariusI]

How is that? If axemen are the best unit for attacking opponents (which, actually, you didn't make clear before this post, and you seemed to be arguying the opposite), then what makes iron so crucial? If iron doesn't allow for better units, then what exactly does it do that copper doesn't do?

Okay. Let me clarify. Imo Swordsmen is best to attack if opponent has no iron and copper. I know u disagree.
In other cases Axemen is best, although having some swordsmen as well certainly doesn't hurt!!
Over all: don't have iron "and/or copper" ur screwed. It's the same as in Civ3 with Iron. U need the advantage of these resources to beat ur opponent. Otherwise u stand no chance.

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

 

[Zombie69]

Okay. Let me clarify. Imo Swordsmen is best to attack if opponent has no iron and copper. I know u disagree.

Like i said, axemen are best because you'll be facing a much thinner defense. Try it, you'll see.

In other cases Axemen is best, although having some swordsmen as well certainly doesn't hurt!!

Swordsmen won't help at all in this case. If you attack with swordsmen first, axemen will defend and kill them. If you attack with axemen first, archers will defend. Then when you send in the swordsmen, axemen will defend against them and kill them. Much better to use axemen only.

Over all: don't have iron "and/or copper" ur screwed. It's the same as in Civ3 with Iron. U need the advantage of these resources to beat ur opponent. Otherwise u stand no chance.

Even if you do find iron close by, without copper you're starting from a huge handicap on Deity, unable to expand until it's too late. Copper is by far the most crucial resource in this game. Iron is only useful to allow for axemen if you don't have copper.

 

[dh_epic]

This post was intended for beginners, so there ARE lots of exceptions and nuances. But I'll actually point out that the game is even more nuanced than your 'advanced' amendments.

By now, people have figured out that fast expansion (sometimes through settlers but usually using axemen) is still the best way to play the early game. You just need to make sure to build enough cottages to cover the cost.

I'd give you this. Although I suspect you'd need a financial or organized civilization, even so. Or find yourself dangerously close to bankruptcy at one point. The truth is, even if "as many cities as possible" isn't the right strategy, it's still smart to go for an 'early knockout'. Why? Because everyone's capitol is automatically balanced to make it a "super city". Even if you delay building your first city until 1000 BC, taking the enemy capitol can be huge.

This is a pretty fair comment, although it's slightly more complicated than it was in Civ 3.

If you still think micromanagement has been taken out of the game, you need to read the article in my sig.

While micromanagement will always be a part of Civilization 4, I think there's a few myths in your post. Remainders and roundoffs don't happen, so playing with 'binary science' doesn't really save you anything. I'm almost positive that Firaxis carries those fractions over -- even if they're not displayed in your statistics screens.

But the stuff about worker micromanagement hasn't gone away (hence why I've been such a big advocate of workerless-improvements).

That's to say nothing of Firaxis's ability to close loopholes with a patch.

If you can finish the wonder before the AI does, it's often a good idea to build it. Even a wonder whose effect is useless to you will still be helpful for the GPP it provides. This wasn't the case in Civ 3. Of course, on higher levels, you simply can't beat the AI to wonders most of the time. That doesn't make them not worth getting though, it just makes them hard to get.

My main point -- losing a wonder sucks more than ever, and it's harder to get all the wonders than ever. I know lots of people who make it their goal to build every single one. Trust me when I say that not only is this not feasible, but it's probably not worth it. 500 hammers for 2 or 3 extra Great People Points? You could build a lot of other stuff with that, and still get the GPP through a single additional specialist.

A stack of nothing but axemen is still the best way to attack early in the game. A single archer (or if you don't have archery, a single axeman) is the best way to defend most cities. Nothing has changed.

You're right, except the part about nothing changing. Yes, there's still generally one great city defender (although less so). But archers are not the best way to defend against swords or horses. Moreover, the most important combat no longer takes place around the city-tile. If you decide to defend your cities with a single archer, you'll quickly find your resources cut off, your roads severed, and your economic infrastructure pillaged. An archer in a city can't do anything about that. You *need* those counter-units to be able to stop enemies wandering your city-radius.



I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

 

[cabert]

I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

true, it's not perfect (bugs are alive too), but it's the best strategy game i've seen so far.
Most "strategy game" are at best tactic games. (Some aren't even using good tactics ie RTS isn't involving much strategy nor tactics, AFAIK)
Here, you have to master tactics (a bit), logistics, diplomacy and strategy.
It's complex and rich, with much more variety than Civ 3.

I'm almost as enthousiastic as i was for Civ 1 (which was a completely new game concept).

The only drawback is the time it takes to finish a game.

edit : typo

 

[Zombie69]

While micromanagement will always be a part of Civilization 4, I think there's a few myths in your post. Remainders and roundoffs don't happen, so playing with 'binary science' doesn't really save you anything. I'm almost positive that Firaxis carries those fractions over -- even if they're not displayed in your statistics screens.

People who have looked at the SDK can tell you with 100% certainty that you're wrong. Fractions don't carry over. Also, a simple test in game run for two turns also proves that fractions aren't carried over. I wish they were, but they aren't.

I would never try to insist that Civilization 4 is a perfect game, or that it's achieved the holy grail of true, multiple, equal, balanced choices. But to say that 'nothing has changed' since Civilization 3 is a discredit to it. There's still significantly more variety and strategy, and exploits are tinier and count for much much less.

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.

 

[a4phantom]

I don't want to get sucked into the swords-axes pissing match but I would suggest going on the offensive with just axes right away if you discover copper in your initial city radius.

 

[DariusI]

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.

I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar. Only now you have some extra options (like religion; who cares about that anyway), there's no more grab as much land as you can crazyness and settler-granary combo cities; the game may feel a bit more balanced and growth seems to be more important at times than expansion, but as I said, when u boil it down, it's more or less the same as playing Civ3. Which does not mean it's not a great game and great improvement. (the wonder-movies suck though)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar.

I think that's true, but of course it's intentional. When making a sequel to a series of very successful games, why would you want the mechanics to feel totally different?

A large part of the imbalance and degenerate play style that the Zombie complains about is due to his systematic exploitation of one particular bug. It would be nice if that were fixed (and I'm hoping it will be in Warlords), but Civ3 had bugs that were just as big, in their own way.

There's also more opportunity to play with different styles than you recognize or acknowledge. There's one basic style of play that generally achieves the highest score. But Civ has never been primarily about high scores, and if you focus only on high scores then, yes, you lose a lot of the variety of the game. But it's very possible to play for unique objectives that you choose and create whatever challenges you want. This was true in Civ3 and it's equally true in Civ4. Play games with no chopping, and/or no pop rushing, and/or no early war, etc. You can choose the style of game you like: it's not enforced upon you.

 

[cabert]

I think that's true, but of course it's intentional. When making a sequel to a series of very successful games, why would you want the mechanics to feel totally different?

A large part of the imbalance and degenerate play style that the Zombie complains about is due to his systematic exploitation of one particular bug. It would be nice if that were fixed (and I'm hoping it will be in Warlords), but Civ3 had bugs that were just as big, in their own way.

There's also more opportunity to play with different styles than you recognize or acknowledge. There's one basic style of play that generally achieves the highest score. But Civ has never been primarily about high scores, and if you focus only on high scores then, yes, you lose a lot of the variety of the game. But it's very possible to play for unique objectives that you choose and create whatever challenges you want. This was true in Civ3 and it's equally true in Civ4. Play games with no chopping, and/or no pop rushing, and/or no early war, etc. You can choose the style of game you like: it's not enforced upon you.

totally true!
the variety of possible play style is what i like in this game.

 

[a4phantom]

I agree with Zombie here. Civ4 feels so much alike to Civ3 once you've played it for a bit. The gamemechanics and strategies to win are sooooooo similar. Only now you have some extra options (like religion; who cares about that anyway), there's no more grab as much land as you can crazyness and settler-granary combo cities; the game may feel a bit more balanced and growth seems to be more important at times than expansion, but as I said, when u boil it down, it's more or less the same as playing Civ3. Which does not mean it's not a great game and great improvement. (the wonder-movies suck though)

Darius I, the Undaunted of Persia.

That's all true, and so what? Civ3 was a great game and I'm glad Civ4 is an update and of it and not something new. It's still the same game as Civ1, and that's what it should be. The wonder movies do suck though, and I'm hoping in vain that they'll fix artillery/warships in Warlords.

 

[Zombie69]

I'm not saying i don't want Civ 4 to be like Civ 3. I agree that's a good thing. Just this article portrays it as something completely different, and although it seemed that way at first, in retrospect it isn't.

 

[pigswill]

I guess the thread started just as Civ 4 came out so the differences were more noticable than the similarities (and there are significant differences i.e. phased expansion rather than continuous expansion). So in that sense its not that the OP was wrong its more that its becoming obselete.

 

[Zombie69]

Yeah, that's what i meant (i thought that's what i said).

 

[dh_epic]

People who have looked at the SDK can tell you with 100% certainty that you're wrong. Fractions don't carry over. Also, a simple test in game run for two turns also proves that fractions aren't carried over. I wish they were, but they aren't.

I stand corrected. But then, I anticipate that this would be easy to correct with a mod... I'm surprised Firaxis doesn't do something about this themselves.

All right, i'll admit it's not true that literally nothing has changed. However, i think we both agree that the game is much closer to Civ 3 than the way it was presented in this article not long after it came out.

I think this is a false debate.

It would be inaccurate to say there's no no advantage to expansion. Or micromanagement. Or building a wonder. Or picking your research choice based on what you might be able to sell to the AI. Or finding something that works every game.

But this article never made those claims. Nor was it ever to be a comprehensive strategy guide to follow all the way to deity. The focus was to save a lot of frustration for Civ 3 players as they transitioned to Civ 4.

Saying this article misses a lot of important nuances would be like complaining that your fisher price xylophone won't let you play a symphony.

Several specific exploits in Civ 3 have been closed. And a few 'no-brainer' strategies have been curtailed significantly. Back when lots of people were baffled by Civilization 4 and ready to refund their copies, that was important to know. The specific changes hold true. But the unmentioned strategies that remain, as well as the new exploits and strategies -- that's where other articles come in, and you have eloquently provided.

 

[Mutineer]

I am in agreement with dh_epic .

Actially the only vercion of civ I did not like was civ 3 and especially civ3 conquest. It was just to linear.
Now, on other hand we have mach more variety. Strategic decisions in responce to changing situation play mach more higher role now then in previous civ instalments. Game generally rpovide more challange and less of extrimelly unnoing micromanagment.
Even on empreror+ I put some of my workers on automatic later in game.

Original article was very informative when civ4 just come out for ex civ3 players.

There was no internat when I played civ1-civ2 so I still do not undestand this REX everyone talking about.
I was allways winning on Emperor in civ one with out any Rex strategies on highest dificulty level.
Secret was coorect combination of Food/caravans, We love presiddent, spyes, civy milithary or bribing take over, et. I allways was building cities with small overlap and was very surprised when read about this REX thin.

 

[bobalot]

I just tried playing Civ IV again for the third time (installing it, seriously trying to play it etc), I found I didn't like it. So I went looking for some guides and I came across this. It's a bit late, but I think i get the message.

You don't like Civ 4....THEN you must playing it like it like Civ 3 (and without saying it,I'm inferring you simply suck)

You cannot dislike Civilization IV for any legitimate reason. It is the holy grail. It is what Jesus died for. You dislike there MUST BE A PROBLEM WITH YOU. If you find it boring/pointless or a disappointment of a game, there must be something wrong with the way you are playing. You know why? Only ******** people dislike Civ IV. By the way all current Civ 3 players suck, because Civ IV is so much better in every way.

Follow the simple steps list above by DariusI, and you will love the game. If you still don't like the game or in fact hate the fact you feel like you wasted money on the game, its because you are stupid and can't play properly.

Just clearing things up a bit for new Civ IV players reading this article. I hope I got that air of being an arrogant pompous twit just right. If only Darius was still around to confirm.