Civ IV Vanilla v BTS

[TonyUK]

I can win at noble with the Vanilla version, but as soon as I play BTS I struggle at warlord level, so what is wrong with BTS, its no fun at all. Tried various leaders and get nowhere. Been trying for 6 months, go back to Noble on vanilla and win fairly easil. Very strange this.

I know there are more options and leaders with BTS but why it is so different? Therefore I am inclined to stick with vanilla as I am wasting so much time with BTS.

So does anyone have a view on this, which is the better game bearing in mind BTS is almost impossible to play!? Maybe just turning off the spy option might help?

[Heraclitus]

Ehh you are bothered that they improved the AI ?



I'd hate to say this but you are not going to get many voices of support.

[TonyUK]

You are probably right but playability has suffered. More resources are not within arms length and A1 has more units in cities during the early phase than before. How do they do this for example. Making it very difficult to launch an early rush.

[Fleme]

So thhe AI actually puts up a fight and you don't like it?

[Quillan]

Most of us found that we had to drop back a notch or two on difficulty with BtS. I had moved to Prince in Warlords, but had to drop back to Noble in BtS. Yes, it's more challenging, but I like it. Play where you can, you'll learn the new tricks and improve.

[Ming]

If you want to play a game that isn't a challenge, you can play at the lower levels and just have a fun romp.
But frankly, what fun is that.

If you want to actually play a game that you can't win all the time, we now have that game. It's call BTS

[jbp26]

everything in BtS is better. i find vanilla civ to be really boring now that i have it.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by TonyUK
You are probably right but playability has suffered. More resources are not within arms length and A1 has more units in cities during the early phase than before. How do they do this for example. Making it very difficult to launch an early rush.

Try a lower difficulty level.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by TonyUK
.... Making it very difficult to launch an early rush.

Learn how not to depend on an early rush.
Make it a later rush, instead, having built up a larger army first.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Heraclitus

Try a lower difficulty level.

Better yet, try reading some more threads around here and improve your game.

[TonyUK]

Thanks for all the replies even the adverse ones. I dont really want to drop to Settler so I will try to persevere and play the game slower. I like more automation such as missionaries that you had to move before(but not automated workers) Cant find a way to turn off spies though so perhaps I should be allocated 10% research to this.

[Seedle]

BtS is harder than vanilla, but like most other people, I see this as a good thing. At one point I had trouble with warlord difficulty on vanilla, now I beat the snot out of Noble on BtS, just read the threads here and ask questions, there is a lot of good advice on improving your game to be had here.

That being said, you aren't the only one who has a problem with the espionage system. Too much effort for too little effect if you ask me. You can allocate 10% to espionage, but it is usually effective to just prioritize courthouses (a good idea anyway.) The AI will spam you with spies no matter what you do, so don't put too many resources into espionage and think you will be spy proof. As long as you can see your opponents research, you have as much espionage as you need.

As far as early rushes go, you can try Egypt or Persia with there chariot upgrades. I prefer Persia's unit and Darius's traits, but most around here seem to swear by Egyptian War Chariots, so try both. Of course, those are good for the super early rush, but I prefer a later offensive when my empire is better able to pay for the expansion. To do this, use Rome. Praetorians kick ass and take names and don't break a sweat while they're at it. Practice warring with these Civs and you'll get the experience you need to do early war using any civ. Another thing you can do to make early war easier is use the custom game menu and make sure none of the leaders you are playing against are protective. It doesn't matter too much with Rome or Persia, but civs without early UUs can have trouble against protective archers in the early game.

[Robert]

The problem I had with Civ1 and Civ2 is that I played those game for years while I won every game at the highest level.

I'm glad that I keep on losing civ4:bts on immortal level. And I don't see the day ever seeing the light that I can win every game on monarch or emperor level.

It's a struggle for life, and I like it
Civ4:BtS all the way!

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by Ming
If you want to play a game that isn't a challenge, you can play at the lower levels and just have a fun romp.
But frankly, what fun is that.

Some people don't like their play to be work-like, in the slightest. I like to improve my gameplay, but the minute the AI makes my game a chore, it's getting bullets in the kneecaps. It's there so I can have fun.

When it comes down to difficulty in a game, developers are doing it right if the diehard / hardcore gamers are complaining about it being simple. That means it's at the right difficulty.

[Crossfire]

I absolutely disagree with that statement. The ONLY good game is one that isn't winnable very often by even the best players. It gives me a target to aim for. Even after 2 years of playing Civ4 I am still getting better and still have 2 levels to try to win at. If you feel bad about playing at the lowest levels, put some effort into learning the game instead of being a lazy sod.