Ita Bear
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2020
- Messages
- 284
Civilization IV is a game that allows a wide variety of playstyles and, over the years, different schools of thought have appeared in regards to how best to play the game. That said, some opinions are more unpopular than others. What are your unpopular opinions and strategies for playing the game? I'll get started with a couple of suggestions that I have sometimes seen regarded as poor or "useless", though bear in mind I am not a Deity player:
1. Stonehenge is a good wonder (with important caveats). For Creative leaders, I agree it is useless. For non-Creative leaders, building the wonder essentially conveys a mini-Creative trait, and the hammer cost can be easily recouped in a middling-size empire. It allows greater flexibility in settling spots, gives culture defence against opponents and helps stabilise newly conquered cities. For Charismatic leaders, it's even better as it allows an extra citizen to work the land.
2. Aggressive is a pretty good trait. Half-price barracks are ok, but the free promotion guarantees you the edge in equal fights. However, the main benefit comes from promotions. Having Combat I free allows quick specialisation and immediately opens up the medic path. With a barracks built, your units should consistently have the edge.
3. Iron Working isn't as bad as some folk make out. I have seen it argued that the player should NEVER research IW, which I think is a silly restriction. On tropical maps or jungle-heavy starts, or with an absence of copper, or being Rome, or even being isolated, there is a strong case to prioritise IW. It's a heavy investment, but watching good city sites lay dormant under jungle is painful. If two or more Dyes/Gems cities are achieveable with IW and jungle chops, I would argue the investment is repaid.
I'm sure there will be discussion and arguments. I am interested to hear your take and what you personally consider an unpopular opinion or strategy.
Kind regards,
Ita Bear
1. Stonehenge is a good wonder (with important caveats). For Creative leaders, I agree it is useless. For non-Creative leaders, building the wonder essentially conveys a mini-Creative trait, and the hammer cost can be easily recouped in a middling-size empire. It allows greater flexibility in settling spots, gives culture defence against opponents and helps stabilise newly conquered cities. For Charismatic leaders, it's even better as it allows an extra citizen to work the land.
2. Aggressive is a pretty good trait. Half-price barracks are ok, but the free promotion guarantees you the edge in equal fights. However, the main benefit comes from promotions. Having Combat I free allows quick specialisation and immediately opens up the medic path. With a barracks built, your units should consistently have the edge.
3. Iron Working isn't as bad as some folk make out. I have seen it argued that the player should NEVER research IW, which I think is a silly restriction. On tropical maps or jungle-heavy starts, or with an absence of copper, or being Rome, or even being isolated, there is a strong case to prioritise IW. It's a heavy investment, but watching good city sites lay dormant under jungle is painful. If two or more Dyes/Gems cities are achieveable with IW and jungle chops, I would argue the investment is repaid.
I'm sure there will be discussion and arguments. I am interested to hear your take and what you personally consider an unpopular opinion or strategy.
Kind regards,
Ita Bear