1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Why am I not allowed to build Warriors later in the game?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Illusion13, Dec 30, 2007.

  1. Illusion13

    Illusion13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    Burnaby, Canada
    What if I just wanted to build a Zerg rush of Warriors? >.>
     
  2. Strato

    Strato Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    163
    Then you would be giving the other players a lot of Exp.
     
  3. KMadCandy

    KMadCandy giggling permanoob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,993
    Location:
    Peepsville
    the rule is that you can't build a unit once you know the tech for every unit it directly upgrades to, and you have the resources for that unit. so, you can build warriors for a long time in a city that doesn't have any metals, say it isn't connected to the rest of your empire, until you learn gunpowder and don't need metal any more. i've done that a bit in some games. not to zerg rush tho, just to have military police in games where i feel pretty safe from attacks. unfortunately, i'm not always right and might have been better off with higher-tech troops...

    the other thing i do sometimes is hold off on learning either rifling or military science, so that i can make one of, but not both, grenadiers and riflemen. that means that macemen aren't obsolete yet, since they upgrade to both of those units. macemen can get city raider and gunpowder units can't, so then i go on a mace building frenzy before learning the last tech that'll make them go obsolete, to pile on the CR promotions.
     
  4. Illusion13

    Illusion13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    Burnaby, Canada
    wow that does sound like an awesome technique O.o

    Well Zerg rush of Warriors can be useful. Say... You're under both Vassalage and Theocracy, thats 4 free exp right there, 3 from barracks, say you're aggressive which means free Combat I. Some cities also have a Great General specialist in them, which means more exp. All in all you can give your Warrior say, City Raider, Combat, etc etc... At least doubling its strength if you attack a city. Now with things that cause collateral damage, bombers, artillery, etc... You can reduce every unit in a city to miniscule strength. Now that you've fully collateral damaged the 100 unit stack, you Zerg rush it with 200 of your own warriors.

    Yeah I know I am probably crazy and on crack at the same time, oh well, just a thought >.>

    Thing is, in that Final Frontier mod, I HAVE used bombers and Starbases to completely reduce a stack of Battleships down to like nothing. Then even warriors will suffice >.>
     
  5. Macha

    Macha Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Messages:
    859
    Location:
    Ireland
    Just disconnect a city from all your resources and you can build warriors.
     
  6. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    Just for some of us who don't know. What the h... is a "Zerg" rush?
    and BTW, so if your stack of double-strength warriors hits a city with a couple
    of mech infrantry, what then? It'd be lots of strength 2's against a few
    32's with first strike and experience upgrades after each attack?:eek:
    I think I've seen this movie.:lol:
     
  7. KMadCandy

    KMadCandy giggling permanoob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,993
    Location:
    Peepsville
    :lol: most of the things i do in civ fall more under the "wacko" label than "awesome technique". see this post for what i think is my most extreme example of delaying making macemen obsolete.

    i'm not real sure what a zerg rush is. my old-lady impression from most of the contexts i've heard it in is that it's like in an mmo when you get a ton of people on your side to go kill just a few people on the other side, completely overpowering them. and then you run around trashtalking, saying "roflcopter we OMGWTHBBQPWND joo!" but i could be entirely wrong, i never pvp. i'm a permawuss.
     
  8. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    I wish I could say that helped. I don't know what the h... you're talking
    about either!:confused: What's an mmo or a pvp?

    Must be like Churchill said. "Two nations divided by a common language".
    ( Or maybe it was Oscar Wilde?):)
     
  9. KMadCandy

    KMadCandy giggling permanoob

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,993
    Location:
    Peepsville
    uhoh! mmo = shorthand for Massively Multiplayer Online (sometimes RolePlaying) Game, like World of Warcraft and Guild Wars and a lot of others, and some first person shooter games i don't know the names of. PvP is Player versus Player. for those games, there are "sides" or "factions" and they fight each other. the players try to kill each other :eek:. i only know how WoW works: you earn experience to get higher levels and more abilities by killing monsters, but you can earn "honor" to get better equipment and stuff by killing players. WoW has some PvE servers too, player vs environment i think that stands for, where you just fight monsters. even on PvE servers you can PvP when you want to, but you have go specific places to do it, you won't ever be standing around doing normal stuff and BAM somebody kills you when you weren't expecting it and knowing that it was a possibility. they have that option because of wimpy players like me. the hardcore PvP folks have a nickname for people like me ... "carebear" ... that doesn't bother me a single bit! *giggle*

    so like, you're level 25 out trying to fight monsters to get experience on a PvP server. and some level 70 from the other side has nothing better to do, and comes by and kills you. both sides do this sometimes, since there are jerks on both sides. and every once in a while, each side will go "zerg" the other team's big cities. they fight all the guards and it's really fun to stand there and watch everybody on both sides die. they're all crazy.

    civ4 is so much more civilized imo :lol:. but there's probably a real definition of zerg that means nothing like i think it does. i'm really curious how off base i am *giggle*.
     
  10. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    IMHO You're really weird, lady. Both the missus and I are rabid gamers
    and are over 60. So you're not alone in that.
    (Ya, don't let the name and avatar fool ya. My old black cat died last year.
    Her name was Jessie. I'm human, or very nearly!).
    I've been a Civ fanatic for 15 years. My partner does adventure games esp.
    the irritating puzzle-solving kind. Horses for courses, i guess.
    I bow to your gaming expertise on Civ and other types of games. And my
    congratulations in advance for reaching your 4000 posts. What do you do
    in your spare time? Bit of brain surgery, just keep busy?:rolleyes:
    Anyway thanks for indulging the old fart. Wishing you a Happy New Year!:)
     
  11. reverend oats

    reverend oats Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    641
    Location:
    Uberwald
    Zerg rush is a term from the RTS Starcraft, where the Zerg player would build a horde of his very cheap Zerglings and overwhelm the other player with those weak units.
     
  12. silver 2039

    silver 2039 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2003
    Messages:
    16,208
    The real question is why you would want to build warriors later in the game? Because a zerg rush really won't work well at all.

    I would take a mace men over 10 warriors any day.
     
  13. jessiecat

    jessiecat Divine Monarch

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,405
    Location:
    Cornwall, somewhere near England
    Thanks for that. No wonder I never heard of it.:)
     
  14. Illusion13

    Illusion13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    Burnaby, Canada
    Yeah its a term from Starcraft, quite possibly the most popular RTS ever... I cant believe not that many people have heard of it here =O

    Yeah Zerg rush is exactly what that is. Zerglings are cheap, move fast, and attack fast. 10 of them are never going to do anything useful later in the game but if you get like 100, you an overwhelm just about anything. Well, you can overwhelm alot of things with 100 Zerglings anyways...

    I was under the impression that Zerg rush has spawn the definition of getting weak units to completely overwhelm stronger units already on the internet and people would know >.>

    I am too young T_T (Starcraft is at least 13 years old >.<)
     
  15. Swein Forkbeard

    Swein Forkbeard Nintendo Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,932
    Location:
    Hello, Sir!
    Did you just say most popular? I can't understand why that's true. I bought StarCraft, and it seemed primitive in my face. Placing Rally Points on resource patches meant that you still had to watch your units go there and then assign them to the resource (I did like the fact that you could set a rally point on a unit though). Then there's the queuing limit of FIVE. Present day RTSs either don't have a queuing limit or have a comparatively high one (such as 25 in Age of Empires III). Now I only got to play the first five missions in the Terran campaign, so I didn't play around with the expansion set, but that was because StarCraft installed a primitive sound system and eventually my computer was entirely without sound. As a matter of fact my dad's still fixing my system and I'm typing from my mom's laptop as we speak. If StarCraft was updated with no queuing limit, rally points that would actually work, 3-D Graphics, and a removal of the impression that humans came and padded the whole map before the skirmish started, then StarCraft would truly be the best RTS on the market. But now it's merely "great" if not just "good". In other words, StarCraft is highly overrated. I am waiting for StarCraft II though.
     
  16. Illusion13

    Illusion13 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    Burnaby, Canada
    There are definetly better RTSes out there, that doesnt mean Starcraft is not by far the most widely played one... And well, I honestly dont know why that is the case... Perhaps it was good in '95 and then that drew enough fan base to keep drawing in other fans later on to finally build the fan base today...

    3D graphics? Psh...
     
  17. say1988

    say1988 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,659
    I have wanted to build old obsolete units before, if you have lots of gold, but lack production and aren't running Universal Suffrage for whatever reason (mainly this is in RFC when the anarchy would kill me, but it does happen in normal games).

    If you just want to see hordes of warriors attack modern units, just use the world-builder.
     
  18. Goldar

    Goldar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Starcraft was/is so popular because apparently (I don't play it but I hear this more often) for multiplayer it's very well balanced while the different playable races are very different. Graphics are a non-issue. So the player's skill is really the deciding factor.

    This balance is something that is very hard to achieve in any computer game. For WoW which I played, this balance is not there for example. There are 9 classes but for 1 versus 1 battle these classes are not balanced (the warlock class usually is overpowered). And despite the developer trying to balance it (around 5 v 5 players battle) this is never really accomplished, no matter what expansion or patch is introduced.
     
  19. Verge

    Verge Let's hug it out

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,019
    Location:
    Science/Technology forum!
    Anyone who doubts Starcraft's popularity needs to take a trip to Korea and see what they do for fun.
     
  20. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    The mechanics of combat in Civ IV play strongly against the zerg type rushes, unless the Zerged unit can do collateral damage ( that is completely unbalanced in Civ IV, with firaxis showing little imagination to solve it ( just disallowing siege of killing in BtS and making it extremely vulnerable to mounted units of that era ... not exactly elegant ( and to say the truth not even a real solution... but that is another issue ) ) ), due to the way that the diference in strength is magnified by the combat formula ( more details in the War academy article " Combat explained" ). If you want to do a zerg rush in Civ IV, just dust out the vanilla or warlords disk and mass catapults....
     

Share This Page