Non Agressive Playstyle Possible ?

[RevMunky]

Ive played Civ II and III for only a short while and just started Civ IV. Im more of a builder/diplomatic kinda guy so not to heavy on the armies...

This wasnt really possible in CivII and III and i was wondering if it is possible in Civ IV... Ive read about the whole culture/diplomatic/space race winning victories. And they added religion and culture etc. Im really not that good yet so it could be me , but im getting the feeling the only way to survive/win (like in previous Civs) is having a big huge army and fast, specially in the beginning, because else you wont even survive the first 4000 years. Focussing on techs and buildings that increase your culture/research/religion etc results in low tech armies and getting crushed by barbarians

So are those creative/spiritual/industrious leader traits even worth it or is the agressive leader trait *better* and just build a mass army and go for the conquest/dominion victory conditions ?

I think im just hoping some veteran will post and reassure me that a culture strategy also works without having to build an armada

[Willem]

Re: Non Agressive Playstyle Possible ?

Originally posted by RevMunky
I think im just hoping some veteran will post and reassure me that a culture strategy also works without having to build an armada

You don't have to be a warmonger to win the game, however that doesn't mean that you can neglect your military completely. If you allow yourself to get too weak, then other civs will come knocking. But that doesn't mean you need to go out of your way to beat up on your neighbours either.

That said, there's still an advantage to being a warmonger. A large part of your final score is based on the amount of territory you control and how much population you have in your empire. The best way to get those is still through conquest.

[Jmaz]

Catherine is a good choice to get experience playing CIV IV.
Her traits get you a culture boost to get your borders defined and she is 'financial' to help pay for your expansion.

A large army isn't necessary but it does need to have some meat to it. (check the power graph and just stay somewhat near the top)

Founding a religion is good but it could get you in diplomatic trouble. Figure out which neighbor will be the biggest problem and adopt theirs.

The more difficult the level, the more the AI starts with so you have to beef up the army more quickly.

But yes it is possible to live peacefully, you just have to flex you biceps.

[LoriTX]

Play a custom game and check the only Peace box!!! No one can declare war or attack each other!


Lori

[RevMunky]

Although that custom game with *peace only* sounds tempting it does remove an aspect of the game so ill prolly wont go that far

Ill prolly stick with 1 or 2 religions (bud/hin, because these are fairly easy to get (dont need alot of tech specialization) and will give me some cash/culture/and happy faces in the long run) but ill guess ill adopt if a character like montezuma is knocking on my door

Suppose i just need to focus on a few more militairy techs, specially in the beginning. I tried noble difficulty level because i see that as the *normal* difficulty (no boosts or penalties) but damn those barbarians come knocking fast already

Thanks for all the replies you guys

[Overcast32]

I tend to be more defensive - could say more "peaceful" as well. I'll expand and build the best I can - I like the quick expansion at first and then work on building cities up

I find with the huge barbarian rushes around 1100 BC or so, that it doesn't always help to improve land a whole ton - well, at least that's a tactic I'm going to try now.

But, I'll usually just keep improving until I get attacked. After that, if I'm winning - the other Civ may find I'm not too quick to accept peace afterwards. I recall on one game, Montezuma (suprise) attacked me - while he was just barely into Axemen... I already had a good selection of Swordsmen and Horse Archers around my cities, so I held off his attacks quite easily. He kept asking for a peace treaty but he didn't get it until he was down to 2 cities - that I had already completely razed the surrounding terrain of. He never quite recoveerd from that for the rest of the game.

So, sure you can probably win without ever going to war once - but make sure your defenses are strong. If you want to help your units get some experience - leave those barbarian cities alone for a while - let them keep sending units up for you to pick off I'll put a stack of 3-4 units right by the barbarian towns and just pick them off as they come out!

I believe one of the quotes I liked from Rome: Total War was, "The Wise man prepares for war, even in times of peace".

If you're not being aggressive, you should be able to build up some healthy garrisons in your cities - and send those old Warriors out to get some Experience from Barbarians - or die trying

[RevMunky]

Hehe thanks for the advice... Im prolly gonna tone down the difficulty back to Settler too i think... I need to work out some sorta strategy to follow ( what to research first, build what and such) before i try Noble.. eventho the game says Noble its balanced it sure aint the same as another game on *normal*

[OssomTossom]

Yeah, you can play a game without getting into any wars. I guess. I recently played a game on Noble (on the Earth map with all 18 Civs) as Germans, and my only wars (meaning actual conflict) were the ones I started myself. I think I could have played the game through without ever attacking anyone, either - but I'm too lazy to try. I can't remember at the moment, but I think Aztecs declared war on me once; however, we never fought.

So yes, I guess you can play without getting into wars, but you'll need a very good standing army all the same.

[Overcast32]

Originally posted by RevMunky
Hehe thanks for the advice... Im prolly gonna tone down the difficulty back to Settler too i think... I need to work out some sorta strategy to follow ( what to research first, build what and such) before i try Noble.. eventho the game says Noble its balanced it sure aint the same as another game on *normal*

Yeah, don't kill yourself to play on a high difficulty level... It's mainly about having fun. I've never really played Civilization at all - until Civ4. I bought Civ 3, but couldn't get into it that much. I'm an Alpha Centauri Vet though, and the games are all pretty much the same. First couple Civ4 games I played were on the settler level too, until I got the feel of it - now I usually play on Noble, but I've been thinking about moving up a notch or two now.

I thought about finding some copies of Civ 1 or Civ 2 - but I dunno, Civ 4 should keep me busy for sometime - especially the way I play games. I'm never in a rush to finish them - they get too boring then

[Martin the Dane]

It is definitely possible to play (and win) a game without ever going to war. I did that in my second game, my first on prince. I was way behind in technology, for most of the game, so I decided preaty early to try to go for a cultural win.

To do this you need 9 cities, and as many religions as you can get, dosn't matter if you found them or not. As soon as you get a religion spread it to all your 9 cities, build the asociated temple, and then in the 3 culture cities build the associated cathedral. Also try get as many wonders and spread them between the three culture cities. If you have to chose, go for the wonder generating the most culture. There are a few wonders that are better in this regard than others: The Sistine Chapel, will give +2 culture/specialist and The Eiffel Tower gives free brodcast tower in all cities.

And build all culture producing buildings in each of the three culture cities.

Finally: don't forget to have a sizeable army, and don't upsett your neighbours to much.

[RevMunky]

Hehe well guess one of my main mistakes is not making a big enough army i suppose... guess ill put some more effort in that aspect of the game

Btw do you guys think its worthwhile to try and found an early religion (like bud/hin/jud) when your civ doesnt start out with the Mysticism tech ? Or is it a waste of turns researching that should be spent on improvement and militairy techs instead?

[Willem]

Originally posted by RevMunky
Btw do you guys think its worthwhile to try and found an early religion (like bud/hin/jud) when your civ doesnt start out with the Mysticism tech ?

I don't think it's worth it myself. I gave up trying to go for an early religion and go for Confucianism instead now. That was mainly because I wanted to focus my capital as a science city, but having a Shrine there polluted my Great Scientist odds.

[RevMunky]

Boy oh boy. I had problems going higher then chieftan in previous Civ games but now its even harder (yet more fun) with all those extra ways to win a game

Keep starting my game over, because i have the feeling im not doing to well as i should

[Willem]

Originally posted by RevMunky
Keep starting my game over, because i have the feeling im not doing to well as i should

I was like that too for the first month I started playing. I'd recognize mistakes I was making and start over in order to do things better. After awhile though I came up with a few tactics that worked so I do it less often now.

[Qwertqwert]

Generally what I do, until I've got a clear lead over everyone else, I only spend enough on the military to stop other civs from attacking me constantly (No less than half the military of the top guy, %60 is optimal.)