Why is Civ 4 so difficult??

[lymond]

Reading a bit more actually showed the Mids are an alternate way to expand the happy cap (like Religion, HR, or Calendar) in the early game. Provided you can build it quick, of course.

If you have early access to stone or the IND trait, Mids is a must play generally, and not just for happiness. The boost to specialists is very powerful early.

-I love the Trebuchet battle animation. It looks like its whipping enemy soldiers to death.

Ha..I turned of animations a long time ago. Once you see those a bit, you want to turn them off to play faster. There's also options for quick movement and fast attack.

-Barbs spawn really quick in fog, don't they? Just one turn is all you need.

Not sure what you mean be quick or just one turn, but barbs do spawn in the fog. One of the best tricks to eliminate/reduce barb spawn is to spawnbust. A single unit will bust an 5X5 area from the tile it is stand on, so it is a good idea to keep your early warriors (or scout) outside our borders in strategic spots to spawnbust your immediate area. You don't need units in your actual city for quite some time so don't just plant your first warrior in your city. Scout your immediate area (10 tile radius), and then set him up to spawnbust - ideally your first city spot to keep it safe. Subsequent warrior builds should also move out to spawnbust other areas. Your cap does not a unit it there for a while as you are usually small and whipping.

. I'm still wrapping my head around "not researching archery" on higher levels like lymond was suggesting -- he's a heck of a lot better than me, so I'm sure that's very good advice, but I have no idea how I would survive the early game without archers.... l.

In general, I avoid archery if at all possible. However, I'm a big fan or Horse Archers, so I will certainly tech it for those, or trade for it (by then I"m likely teching it in 1 to 2 turns) Problem with trading for archery though, if you really don't need it, is it goes against your trade cap, which hurts later trading.

Still, especially on higher levels, IMM or Deity only, there may certainly be times where you are forced to tech it depending on the map and lack of early strats. Below IMM, I almost would never see a chance of needing it.

Oh..and see my bit just above on spawnbusting. Experienced players no how to spawnbust effectively...it's a critical part of early gameplay

I will say this though, DizzKnee, I play normal setting. Larger maps are just not my thing, and larger maps, depending on the map and proximity of AIs, can be harder to spawnbust simply to there being so much more land. Plus, more land means more barbs. So I could see maybe more need for Archery, But, and I say, but, only if you don't have early access to copper or horses.

Just keep in mind that otherwise, Archery is a dead-end tech diversion that is side-tracking you from more important techs.

Ultimately, the objective of experienced players is to never have barbs enter there borders at all. Archers are mainly city defenders and you really don't want barbs approaching your gates, and pillaging along the way.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

If you have early access to stone or the IND trait, Mids is a must play generally, and not just for happiness. The boost to specialists is very powerful early.

I suppose you should run at least a hybrid economy then, even if you're Financial?

Ha..I turned of animations a long time ago. Once you see those a bit, you want to turn them off to play faster. There's also options for quick movement and fast attack.

I enjoy the animations too much for that. Also, the tension with some battles and the unexpected low-odds victories. Quick Movement is something I'm considering, since units seems to jog leisurely instead of marching.

Not sure what you mean be quick or just one turn, but barbs do spawn in the fog. One of the best tricks to eliminate/reduce barb spawn is to spawnbust. A single unit will bust an 5X5 area from the tile it is stand on, so it is a good idea to keep your early warriors (or scout) outside our borders in strategic spots to spawnbust your immediate area. You don't need units in your actual city for quite some time so don't just plant your first warrior in your city. Scout your immediate area (10 tile radius), and then set him up to spawnbust - ideally your first city spot to keep it safe. Subsequent warrior builds should also move out to spawnbust other areas. Your cap does not a unit it there for a while as you are usually small and whipping.

What I meant was there was a fog tile for one turn, and when I move next turn there was already a Barb unit there.

Building up an invasion fleet for Saladin. Americans invading Arabs, never saw that coming. Anyway, having a lot of doubts and concerns. What I can remember for now:
-One AI is teching Democracy. May have to consider starting the transition to a Cottage Economy. I have Observatories in all my science cities, so I can at least run 3 Scientists and the GP farm with Oxford can run 6. Still a point to remaining in Representation then. Any other advice people can give on this transition?
-Is Forbidden Palace useless if you have State Property?
-Using Spies, I notice the movement cursor turns red when over a foreign city. Does that mean they can only be stumbled upon in cities? Or does moving around even in Open Borders have a chance to get the spy caught?

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I suppose you should run at least a hybrid economy then, even if you're Financial?

I'd say that if you build the Mids, you should definitely run scientists where you have the food.

Generally speaking, I think talk of a "specialist economy" or "cottage economy" is considered a bit obsolete--at least if by those terms ones means using exclusively specialists or cottages. I know Seraiel has made this point on the forums a few times. To get the best possible economic performance, you really want both a heavily cottaged capital (which will be immensely boosted by Bureaucracy and probably also an Academy)--that's really the best way to get beakers in the mid-game. (If your capital's terrain is not conducive to cottages, consider moving your palace). But you also almost always want at least one city running specialists to generate great scientists or merchants. Great people are really powerful and you're going to need them. If you're Financial you may lean more cottage-heavy with the rest of your cities (especially if they have river tiles), but still aim for at least one GP farm.

 

[lymond]

yeah, as caius mentioned, I would not get too caught up with things like "specialist economy", although feel free to mess around with it. Hybrid has really been the way to go for some time. Just cause you build the Mids and can run early Rep doesn't preclude cottaging. With that said though, there can be certain maps or situations where cottaging is just not feasilble ..at least early, so if you can get that Mids early you might focus more on a specialists economy..or really SSE/WWE economy...a standard for Obsolete (old player).

City specialization is really what you need to think about. You will get more savvy with this concept the more you play and learn

Transition to Cottage Economy? Still point in remaining Rep? Don't get it. If I did not have the Mids early and I'm playing late as you are..usually for Space, I'd be running Rep as soon as I obtained Constitution. Late cottages are kinda iffy unless you indeed run Emancipation yourself, which sometimes you may have to do. Or just focus on workshops, windmills, watermills, i.e., hammers.

Spies can get caught anywhere in an AI's culture. Not sure what the red thing is

 

[Ricci]

I suppose you should run at least a hybrid economy then, even if you're Financial?

It would be the more safe & versatile approach. The fact that, even being FIN and getting more from cottages, you really need GP to some extent, It is not the other way around; running a SE this is, you can completely bypass cottages. Transitioning from an early SE to a late CE is, in my view, the best economical gameplay to have, but difficult to achieve in full extent. Those early GP are truly imbalancing to your favor if used correctly (PHI trait being so good -the best -in my opinion- of the economical traits.). Government wise optimization of one or the other can´t occur simultaneously. As noted above, it is not always possible or even "good" to try and force one type of economy when the conditions don´t factor in; mainly due to terrain, this is. If you do try this transition, as GP rate gets more and more slow, emancipation is paramount, also noted.
By the way, it is perfectly sane and conceptually useful to precise the different economies as ideas (pure fundamental meaning): thus the SE and CE come as the primary ones, production follows, trade economy, wonder/religious, war, etc. I will always use these and in my book there is no wrong or anything obsolete in doing so. The fact that running a pure pure SE or CE is almost impossible and/or not optimal most of the time makes for an impractical use of the concepts if were to be taken in a purist sense, as old gamers never do.
Needless to say I have played some amazing games triumphantly running pure economies. But these were true exceptions. Once with Ghandi (isolated continent start) I arranged a full full SE (pacifism, mercantilism, everything) whithout having the mids and kept the edge in tech and wonders. This was MP, three human players. Unfinished game.. jajaja!

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Transition to Cottage Economy? Still point in remaining Rep? Don't get it. If I did not have the Mids early and I'm playing late as you are..usually for Space, I'd be running Rep as soon as I obtained Constitution. Late cottages are kinda iffy unless you indeed run Emancipation yourself, which sometimes you may have to do. Or just focus on workshops, windmills, watermills, i.e., hammers.

I don't know. I'm not comfortable enough with my tech lead to just completely focus on production.

Anyway, I just remembered why I enjoyed being a builder in Civ 4. Modern warfare is just...tedious. I'm so glad I didn't disable Domination (if you're going to conquer the world, do it properly) since I don't think I may have the patience for Conquest when AI cities have a number of defenders and other AIs keep resettling razed cities.

 

[lymond]

Keep in mind that you can turn hammers into gold and beakers. The point is what is best at that time. If you are cottaging late and not running Emancipation (which I usually) avoid, those cottages take a long time to grow and really don't do much for you, as opposed to turning a new city into a production powerhouse with watermills, windmills and workshops and with factories and power now. You can turn that into a lot of gold and beakers. And if going Space, these cities can help build parts, or otherwise build units fast for killing stuff. State Property helps that a lot too as it boosts workshops and watermills, and cities' overall production...while reducing overall maintenance costs. Corps, ofc, can be a powerful alternative in the right situations.

I don't play long games often unless going for Space in a BOTM or HOF game, and I don't fight late too often. I get what I need sooner for my Space requirements. Otherwise, I most often just try to kill dominate the map as soon as possible...usually with Curs, or if whatever reason the game is on lower levels, an early unit like Horse Archers.

I never turn off victory conditions.

(note: Conquest can be achieved through vassalization as well)

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Keep in mind that you can turn hammers into gold and beakers. The point is what is best at that time. If you are cottaging late and not running Emancipation (which I usually) avoid, those cottages take a long time to grow and really don't do much for you, as opposed to turning a new city into a production powerhouse with watermills, windmills and workshops and with factories and power now. You can turn that into a lot of gold and beakers. And if going Space, these cities can help build parts, or otherwise build units fast for killing stuff. State Property helps that a lot too as it boosts workshops and watermills, and cities' overall production...while reducing overall maintenance costs. Corps, ofc, can be a powerful alternative in the right situations.

I hadn't considered that conversion. No wonder people like State Property so much. I'm really sad now they didn't keep the economy system in Civ 4. It's perfect, really. Well...Slavery's overpowered.

I don't play long games often unless going for Space in a BOTM or HOF game, and I don't fight late too often. I get what I need sooner for my Space requirements. Otherwise, I most often just try to kill dominate the map as soon as possible...usually with Curs, or if whatever reason the game is on lower levels, an early unit like Horse Archers.

These are on Pangaea maps?

(note: Conquest can be achieved through vassalization as well)

I'm starting to think Vassals might be more useful than annoying. Anything to reduce the late-game micromanagement. And they might be good for stirring up trouble between civs (bribe against vassal...watch the fireworks).

Domination is still going to be turned off, because come on. Who even came up with that? It's like having a Technological Victory where all you do is research Future Tech a few times in addition to the Space Race victory.

Two-pronged attack on Cyrus. Mech Inf (Ragnar war veterans with CR3 and Combat promotions)/Mobile Arty and coastal Navy SEALs attacks are awesome.
-Cyrus has a ton of Fighters. My Mech Inf stack has two Mobile SAMs. I guess the AI just doesn't risk air attacks under those circumstances?
-Still being surprised by movement mechanics. For fortifying coastal cities, it's better for the Transports to go in the city and unload so troops can fortify on the same turn.
And being able to rebase aircraft anywhere is convenient, but also for the AI. Cyrus moved a number of Fighters to the crappy two tundra cities he settled on my continent. Bombing improvements and just being an annoying piece of...
-One of my Navy SEALs burned down a city on a two-tile island...and now he's facing 5 enemy Infantry resistance units. Was that one of the Random Events or a base game mechanic? I don't remember. If it's the former, that's fine. There should be a meaningful penalty for razing cities. Random Events can be useful in balance, like the Slave Revolt event.
-Oh, just remembered something. When I moved my Mech Inf stack to a Dutch city (4 tiles away from the Persian border), my air recon showed Persian units moving into the area around Tarsus (the target city, 3 tiles from the Dutch border). Good thing I didn't split that stack. I guess the AI's cheats with sight lines, huh?

 

[Kjotleik]

(note: Conquest can be achieved through vassalization as well)

Not to mention that Conquest can be won through razing cities ( ), even while Domination is kept on and vassals turned off.

Domination is still going to be turned off, because come on. Who even came up with that?

If you don't feel it is fun, turn it off. I'll support every player's right to play the game that maximizes enjoyment. But I do reserve the right to mention that it is more fun (for me) to win Conquest if Domination is turned on (I guess I should try out playing as a Horde in EU IV with that attitude, right?).


Sincerely
Kjotleik

 

[Lennier]

Domination is still going to be turned off, because come on. Who even came up with that? It's like having a Technological Victory where all you do is research Future Tech a few times in addition to the Space Race victory.

If you control enough of the world to get a domination victory, you have enough to keep rolling and conquer the rest of the world. Giving a win at the domination limit ends the late-game tedium of having to move your stack(s) to conquer/vassalize every civilization on the map. But if you don't like it, turn it off.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The Domination Victory in Civ IV is great. There are a bunch of things I like about it compared to the "capture all the capitals" or "vassal or destroy all rivals" victories:

--If you have one AI who's been a great friend and trading partner all game, you can stay peaceful with them and win by Domination. No need to stab all your allies in the back.
--If an AI is conquering a bunch of other AIs, then this AI is a serious threat to win the game via Domination. Establishing good relations with a runaway AI wouldn't be enough; you might have to take military action to throw them back. I like this element of danger. In Civ V and VI, since the AI has to capture all the capitals, one AI could conquer the entire rest of the world and still not be a threat to win.
--And finally, as Lennier pointed out, once the human player has 2/3 of the land and population, the challenge is over. Any competent human could pretty much always conquer the final third of the world simply by flooding it with units. It's nice that the game spares the player the tedium of doing so.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

-If you have one AI who's been a great friend and trading partner all game, you can stay peaceful with them and win by Domination. No need to stab all your allies in the back.

That's a good point, I do sometimes feel bad for turning on very good allies. Then again, it's just an AI who will backstab you if its programming thinks it'll be good to do so (see: Friendly AI engaging in Espionage and vassalizing your enemies).

--If an AI is conquering a bunch of other AIs, then this AI is a serious threat to win the game via Domination. Establishing good relations with a runaway AI wouldn't be enough; you might have to take military action to throw them back. I like this element of danger. In Civ V and VI, since the AI has to capture all the capitals, one AI could conquer the entire rest of the world and still not be a threat to win.
--And finally, as Lennier pointed out, once the human player has 2/3 of the land and population, the challenge is over. Any competent human could pretty much always conquer the final third of the world simply by flooding it with units. It's nice that the game spares the player the tedium of doing so.

I keep getting told the AI is better at combat at Civ 4. If it wants that military victory, then it has to demonstrate that and best me.

Got Domination, figured I may as well kill off Brennus just to close the book on that game.
-If damaged enough, units can get a malus to movement points. Was wondering why my mobile warfare stack was moving at 1 tile/turn.
-Surprising how fast cities fall when you have massed airpower.

Time for a Diplomatic Victory. Gotta try out the Spiritual trait and learn how to use Religion. Would be good to learn the intricacies of diplomacy and vassals too. BUG mod seems handy (getting tired of clicking so much to do binary research).

 

[need my speed]

-If damaged enough, units can get a malus to movement points. Was wondering why my mobile warfare stack was moving at 1 tile/turn.

That isn't true. It is likely because, once in enemy territory, you can't use roads, and so, forests and hills consume an extra movement point.

 

[s.bernbaum]

-If damaged enough, units can get a malus to movement points. Was wondering why my mobile warfare stack was moving at 1 tile/turn.

Not in CIV. No matter how much damage a unit has, it still has its full movement. Only combat capability is decreased by damage in CIV.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Huh. Thinking about it, it probably was a unit that already consumed one movement point.

Anyway, diplo game is up and running. Freddy and Mansa are my local trading buddies, and then Mansa's map showed Monty and Shaka on another continent, both huge and probably friendly with each other. I was really hoping I wouldn't need to unsheathe my blade...
-BUG mod has map scripts. Tried Custom Continents with 3 continents. I like that there's island, but there's way too much land. I don't feel it's really a Continents map if you can circumnavigate with a Galley.
-Need to pay attention to civ populations now. Is there a quick way to bring that up in BUG mod?
-Fighting off the Vedic Aryans certainly got the blood pumping. Thank goodness for Slavery and Chariots.
-I just realized how awesome Harbors are. Good amount of Health and extra Commerce? Yes please.

 

[Testhero]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Civ IV!
BIC and lymond have already given you (more than) enough information to start your learning-curve for this game.
They are way better players than I am, so I'm not commenting more on that aspect.

But if you, for training purposes, want to remove barbarians from a game you're starting - you can always go to "Custom Game" and choose the "No Barbarians" option. I actually recommend reading through the options available to you. If you for instance would like to focus one game on learning how to grow and develop cities, you could always choose "No Barbarians," No Technology Trading," "Always Peace," "No Vassal States," "No Tribal Villages" and "No Random Events."

Then, as you learn new skills, you can turn the options on (one by one) in your next games, to increase the complexity of the experience.

Good luck! (<- soon to be yours...)


Sincerely
Kjotleik

Another way to learn quickly is to accept the OCC the One City Challenge choose a small map with 3 or 4 opponents restart untill you get a reasonable starting position
having only one city to worry about lets you work on your Microing skills and you have less to defend and will get to build a good number of buildings to check their pros and cons. A leader like Bismark can be good for a wonder heavy strategy and a super late game unit. there is little chance of Multiple late game DOWS on your Panzer Divisions

 

[zorven]

I'm a Civ V veteran...and have dumped hundreds of hours into that game, however I've recently bought Civ 4 BTS and I really LOVE it. But every time I got even 30 minutes into the game I get completely destroyed by barbarians....even on the easiest settings I get wrecked by them...what am I doing wrong?

- How can a barbarian AXE man can plow through my warriors and archers so easily (what kills an axeman?)? They also literally just had to step on my cities and it gets destroyed...how come my cities can't defend themselves like in Civ 5?

- Why do my cities have that red sad face on them? It says they are unhappy...but what can I do to make them happy? I have a slave civic isn't that enough?

- What are those white circles on the city screen...sometimes i click on them randomly but they don't do anything?!

- How come I am making less gold all the time? Are there trade posts like in Civ V? I don't know how to increase the gold I make =[

Funny, sounds like me. I have played all the civ games a lot (except 6 which I am holding off on) and hadn't played 4 since 5 came out. Picked up Civ 4 on the Steam sale last week and started playing - oh my I feel so lost trying to figure out everything. I am dropping to the bottom of the leaderboard in a stalemate war with my neighbor - I had forgotten the whole rock, paper, scissors aspect to combat. Also, Civ 4 seems to have so much "character" compared to Civ 5.

 

[Tatran]

I don't believe AIs ever initiate Peace Deals in BTS.

They do, but it doesn't work properly.
Napoleon was a vassal of Hammurabi and both capitulated in the same turn to Mehmed II.

 

[ArchGhost]

I have never been a "CIV kind of guy" in my gaming experience. I was always aware of it (some guys in one of my computer tech classes in high school would play snippets of games of CIV 1/FreeCiv in free time) and understood that it was complex, challenging and vast. My first foray into Civ was through Civ: Revolution lol. So extremely simplified and so lacking in mechanics out of necessity for the performance of the console (odd considering CiV 1 and 2 on the SNES/PSX aren't nearly as dumbed down by comparison) that it's a different game entirely .

Stepping into Civ4 was an eye-opener, that's for sure. I can handle complexities. Multitasking, balancing larger strategy vs. tactics, manipulating and picking apart opponents--all skills that cross over with RTS games I grew up playing--I can do, and am familiar with. One thing that took me completely by surprise was the diplomacy system, and how key it is to getting anything done in your games. Diplomacy doesn't exist in most RTS games; you're in an always war scenario with your opponents. And Civ:Rev couldn't really be said to have diplomacy, but rather a tech shopping system with the occasional botherment from an AI leader. Keeping opponents busy, preventing untimely DoWs, deflecting ire to another target, these are all central elements to either keeping your route to kick ass open or prevent being wiped out yourself long enough to get something done. Hell even if you want to go a more peaceful route, you have to keep SOMEONE happy enough to trade with, because you can't tech the whole tree faster than one civ can go down a line, and on higher difficulties you won't even be able to keep up with them anyway unless you pick low priority tech and trade around lol.

The combat system in Civ4 is also, for lack of a better description from me, extremely frustrating. The defender's advantage is HUGE, probably a good thing since war is so beneficial and such an attractive prospect. I found on here some thread back and forth with one of the devs posting about how one of the design choices was to essentially beef up combat in favor of defense, in order to make the AIs competent(ish) at staying alive, and boy does it show. First strikes, culture bonuses, the way defensive bonuses stack higher and more easily than attacking boni, the Protective trait and the way AIs unit spam to some extent and build walls no matter which one they are for defensive purposes combine to make it quite daunting to simply overrun them with same tier units in a cost-effective manner. Siege warfare was something I found well done, and depending on your tech position, absolutely necessary sometimes. It's cool how intricate it is, but at the same time infuriating to me with my bad habits of trying to bring in rushing tactics from RTS games (which are simply about speed) or bullying the inadequate-as-hell Deity AI in Civ Rev which tend to blow up in my face. Trying to bring regular chariots to a Protective civ's hill city is about the most humbling experience you can have in what doesn't work in realistic scenarios. Heh.

It's by far one of the most satisfying and involving games I've played; Civ 4 is a great game, many computer games from that era were amazing and some of my favorites of all time, and my only disappointment is I didn't actually play it until 11 years after it came out :/ What's funny is I never would have expressed interest (Civ5 streams on twitch just seemed boring to me) if I had never played the in-name-only Civ Rev title.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I keep getting told the AI is better at combat at Civ 4.

Certainly more dangerous. Keep in mind you are unlikely to see how formidable it can be at its highest: this isn't Civ 5/6. To fully appreciate what it can do you'll have to be playing Deity on Warlords (not BtS which is easier), be in the late game, and still have a shot at victory: a very high bar to clear.

On the other hand, if you enjoy CIV you'll naturally reach a point where the AI challenge is just right for you, which is a lot more interesting.