Older Civs for a Civ IV newbie?

[AreliusMaximus]

I recently started playing Civ IV, and it's my first Civ game. I've been looking at it since the original Civ came out, but I never ended up buying it until a few weeks ago when I bought Civ IV.

I'm wondering if it's worth getting the older games and giving them a try. Civ II seems to be considered the classic, and I've seen a few people say Civ I is the best because it's a simpler game.

Would spending some time on the older games help understand the dynamics of Civ IV? Or, would it be best to just ignore the older games and keep going with Civ IV? It seems like there's a lot out there, and I've seen references to things like "Elvises" in older game topics that totally lost me.

Just looking for some thoughts from people who've been playing for a bit. I'm still mostly trying to muddle my way through Chieften, so any advice on starting up would be helpful.

[Nugog]

I played Civ I, no Civ II or III.

I loved Civ I - it rocked!

Actually I did play some Civ II on the playstation, not sure if that counts.

From what I have seen and read, I am not sure if they will inherently help with the dynamics of cIV.

Advice wise - what advice are you after?

Warmongering?

Peaceful building?

Getting snotted by the AI?

I am not being snarky or arrogant, but if you are more specific about what areas you want advice on, then we can most definetly help.

In fact you will probably get more advice than you want!

Welcome to cIV, welcome to 'Poly.

[Harovan]

My advice would be to ignore the older games. They won't help you much with CivIV. All of them were great games in their times (with III being a bit weaker), but in terms of today's standards they may be good for a nostalgy trip, but nothing more. CivI is very simple and, well, very exploitable. I didn't play it in it's time (I came from the Colonization camp), and when I got it for cheap later, knowing CivII, I was just disappointed. CivII is great as a multiplayer game, and if you like fun gimmicks like advisors, but it's AI isn't worth a damn and the combat system has severe flaws. CivIII is, well, CivIII - and CivIV is what CivIII should have been. Nah, play CivIV and drop the old stuff.

[Brutus66]

I'm still having to 'unlearn' stuff from the earlier games.
"I just won a combat with my UU, where's my golden age?", and the lesson that ICS = bankruptcy...

[Diadem]

I don't think there's much reason to play the older games, except for sentimental reasons. If you've never played them before, well, not much sentiment then. You could still play them for a bit just to learn what all the fuss is about, but that's hardly worth the price of buying them.

If you just want to learn the game, the older games don't add much. The parts that are the same you will learn by playing this game as well, and the parts that are different will just confuse you. Do play the tutorial
though, it's great.

The older games were very great games. No doubt about it. CivI was pure genius, CivII didn't add much new stuff, but expanded on the concept very well. CivIII was a bit of a disappointment for me, personally, but I've heard of plenty of people who liked it. Many concepts (like resources, golden ages, great people) that are now in CivIV were introduced in CivIII, but in a much less good way.

Anyway, time moves on. Games that were brilliant 15 years ago, are just silly now. They look awfull, are extremely limited, etc.

[Adagio]

My advise it to just dive into CivIV, as there are too many differences between this and the earlier Civ games, and what strategies worked in earlier games doesn't work here
If you've never touched the earlier Civ games before, you'll just end up disappointed with them

[Solver]

Just play Civ4. Every Civ game has been very different, including the non-Firaxis Civ games. If you go play Civ2 or Civ3 now, you'll still be confused about the same things you're confused now, but you'll also be learning a bunch of stuff that doesn't pertain to Civ4.

Just play the game, read the manual, if you haven't, and feel free to ask for any advice here on the forums. Since Civ4 is such a big game, though, you'll probably want to ask for specific advice, not just 'what to do' - such as how to play the first 50 turns, how to stay competitive technologically, how to take cities with minimal losses, etc.

Welcome to Civ and to Apolyton .

[Virdrago]

Welcome Arelius.

Go straight into Civ 4 (like everyone else said). Ask many questions on these forums. People will always answer you, and you may get more than one answer (even five or six!) to some questions. It doesn't mean they're wrong, it's just that everyone plays a little differently. Try them all out. See what you like.

Enjoy. And believe me, you will.

[AreliusMaximus]

Thanks for the helpful replies. I'm going to stick with Civ IV and try to get a good grasp on it. I wasn't sure if the older games might provide some insight, but it sounds like they're different enough that it would just add confusion. Civ IV is already complicated enough but that's a good thing.

As for advice, I do have a couple questions. What's a good way to start off? In my first few games I've tried to lock off other civs from land. I end up with a lot of cities, but a relatively weak military. I read that doing a lot of expansion isn't necessarily good. I've usually ended up have to rush for a Spaceship or Diplomatic victory.

Also, as I mentioned, my military is usually very weak. Building improvements and buildings/wonders in my cities seems to eat most of my turns. I can't imagine wiping all the other Civs off the map with my military, though I have wiped out a couple in a single game. How can balance my military with city growth?

Are there any general tutorials that would be helpful to read? I've played a couple games and I have the mechanics of the game down, but I could definitely use some work on strategy.

Thanks again for the all replies so far, you guys are very helpful!

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I would recommend you try out SMAC/X (assuming you can get it working), though not any of the previous Civ's.

[AreliusMaximus]

SMAC?

[Snotty]

Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri

I think a lot of new or single players dont build enough military, and it can lead you to getting attacked by the ai

[Virdrago]

If you are like me, and a builder, you (sometimes) build too many buildings, to the detriment of your military. The miltary specialists who play usually have a barracks and a granary (only) in a city or two to start, and then that city just cranks out the military. Other cities only have certain buildings for science or cash, to help your exppansion and tech growth. I don't have that mindset (yet), so others may be able to get into more detail.

[AreliusMaximus]

@snotty: Ahh OK, Alpha Centari. I thought SMAC might be some mod for an older Civ, that helps.

I kind of like the historical feel to Civ, so I'm not sure how much I'd like a futuristic/space version of it, even as much a fan of sci fi as I am.

Just for the heck of it I tried Civ IV on Diety just to see. They ran in and destroyed my only (undefended) city about 20 turns in. Needless to say I've kept it on chief since then.

Any suggestions for a good balance of buildings and military for the first bit of the game?

[Solver]

You know, SMAC was a genius masterpiece. Civ4 is, IMO, a superior game, but in some ways, SMAC is still better. If you're ever in a mood for an older and somewhat different game, may want to give it a try.

For the first part of the game, don't try to have too much military. What you need is merely enough to defend yourself. One defender for each city, and whatever you need to scout the world. You don't want to build many cities too quickly, so focus on improving what you have. Build a Worker and improve some land. A Granary is a good building early on for many cities.