Civ IV really is the "Sims edition".

[Sleestax]

I finally won a conquest game on noble difficulty on a normal sized continental map by 2010. It basically required constant war, skullduggery and other shady stuff, but I did it (without cheating by using world builder or whatever). I basically had to start fighting right from 4000bc (not kidding, I killed most of the AIs scouts).

My Rank? Nero..... F-ing Nero....

I won another game as a peace-lovin' hippie builder (space race), and I ranked much higher. Also on Noble continental.

Really Firaxis, why have you forsaken us Hawks?

I will have to see if the same thing happens on Domination as it did with conquest.

[Sava]

How come it took you so long?

I'm playing a large map, terra, as India (Gandhi), on Warlord (but I have edited the handicap file to make it more difficult... so difficulty is basically noble... I just like the bonuses from goody huts that you get on Warlord)...

the year is 1300 AD and I am finishing off the last AI civ... Mansa of the Malinese

Conquest is not hard, but you need to devote your entire strategy to it. It's best to concentrate on one AI at a time. I built a group of units and promoted them accordingly to their purposes. The Swordsmen (and then upgraded accordingly) are the City Raiders, the Horse Archers (and upgraded, etc) are used for units outside of the cities, or for city attacking if the chances are in my favor, and be sure to have defensive units ready to defend your newly conquered cities.

This is my first Conquest victory. It's my 5th game overall.

My score is going to be sick... like over 100,000. I'll post a screenie when I win.

[QuantumPion]

are you playing on a tiny map? How do you support all those undeveloped captured cities, along with all the defenders you have to make for them, not to mention your army itself?

[Sava]

markets, banks, grocers... a strong economy, etc...


large map

[vee4473]

If I go for conquest, I usually just burn everything to the ground. Unless there is a reason to keep a city (first conquest on a new continent etc..)

[Sleestax]

I can't bring myself to burn cities that have wonders in them or if they retained a lot of their infrastructure after I acquire them. So I end up burning a lot of turns pacifying cities so I can get the extra culture from the wonder or production capacity from the city itself for further conquest.

If the city is relatively small, has no wonders, or is poorly placed (like in the middle of tundra with nothing but an oil slick next to it), I will raze it.

Because this is my playing style, I always end up in late-game conquest wins. I have played a scorched earth policy and did win much sooner (middle ages) and got a higher score because of it, but felt cheated that I didn't get to use certain units or build certain wonders. (this is Civ III now).

Civ IV just seems to be totally geared towards peaceful victories. I can't help but feel that the game designers are trying to manipulate our warlike ways and turn us into peaceful builders instead of war-mongerers.

I know some people like the peaceful builder experience. That's fine. If you get great satisfaction by being elected as president of the U.N., good. Just don't take away my pleasure at being a megalomaniac warlord either.

I must also say that this is all pre-patch based commentary. I haven't had a chance to patch and it was pulled before I noticed it had been released.

[Sabre2th]

Sleestax:
It sounds more like a conflict within yourself than a problem with the game. If you can't bring yourself to burn enemy cities, then you will constantly be bogged down. If you want to conquer the world in a realistic amount of time, you have to make appropriate sacrifices along the way. The whole point of Civ4 is to eliminate (or at least cut back on) your ability to dominate all aspects of the game at once. If you want to do well, you have to specialize and stick with your strategy

Regarding the patch: version 1.09 is out now...

[Grumbold]

One thing i'm slightly disappointed about in Civ 4 is the scoring system. It seems to be saying that the overriding factor for points is the conquest date and scorched earth conquest cannot be beaten for speed. Civ II may have overemphasised happy citizens, but at least you got a score that reflected the size and stability of your empire, not your ability to massacre people.

[Sleestax]

Originally posted by Grumbold
One thing i'm slightly disappointed about in Civ 4 is the scoring system. It seems to be saying that the overriding factor for points is the conquest date and scorched earth conquest cannot be beaten for speed. Civ II may have overemphasised happy citizens, but at least you got a score that reflected the size and stability of your empire, not your ability to massacre people.

Agreed. A time-based score for conquest victory is just silly. At the end of the game, my culture score was somewhere above 11,000.

Perhaps I was expecting to be rewarded (ala previous Civs) for conquering the world, keeping my economy strong, keeping my citizens happy and productive and STILL steamrolling all the AIs.

Seriously, look at the great conquerors of history. Even Ghenis Khan who was a famous scorched earther left many wonders in place and cities in-tact. During WWII, both the Axis and the Allies made a point of not attacking "wonders".

I have no interest in playing conqueror if it just means razing all the cities as fast as I can and scooting across the world with my archer/swordsman/catapault rush. I really have no interest in playing just to build a space ship or get elected president of the U.N.. Maybe Civ IV is going to be the "black" civ for me.

When is Civ V being released?

[Son of David]

I get frequent domination victories in the range of 15-25,000 points on Prince. That's enough points for me. This isn't a pub darts competition.

[Robert]

To me the game really doesn't depend on the points I get in the end.
You can be a warmonger and get all the satisfaction you want, just ignore the points it gives to you