Getting started on Civ4 for a Civ2 vet

[Cort Haus]

Musketeer is particularly prone to being obsolete, with Rifleman being only a couple of techs away. I must try some Epic / Marathon games sometime, as on Normal mode any prolonged warmongery seems impossible.

[Blaupanzer]

On normal and quick, the invader often ends up with obsolete units confronting the latest set in an invasion of any length. Fighting becomes more like a raid than a war. The AI seems programmed for that, unless the opponent is a ways away in time. In the latter case, the AI will march up, declare war, and commit suicide attacking your more modern units. I say, go with Epic, really great.

[Guerrilla]

Reply to an old post

Greetings, Lord of the Mark

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You really have to pay attention to the diplo agreements, I see.

I finally figured out you need a city on a river to build Three Gorges. I didnt have city on a river. But the Americans had Washington on a river, right nearby and they were weak. Sure they had a defense pack with Persia and Mali, but those two had no other good reason for war with me.

After watching the Persians take three of my cities, I decided to bag it and restart from my last save before the war.

In hindsight, it looks like Persia (and Mali?) did have good reason for war with you: i.e. to expand their empires. Assuming that you declared war on the Americans (as I think you imply), Persia (and Mali?), being allies of the Americans, were able to cover their war against you with that old veneer of legitimacy that governments have used to justify their wars ever since ancient times.

In the real world, goverments stay more popular with their people and other governments if they use standards of international law, etc., to try to make their invasions look legitimate. It's a matter of trust and so on, in national and international relations, as in personal relations. I mean if you know someone who simply starts fights for no reason, do you want to hang around with such a person? To do so would be risky. It is safer to hang around with people who only start fights in predictable circumstances. As it is in personal relationships, so it is in relations between nations.

I am not sure how much Civ 4 puts this poltical reality into the game mechanics, though. It looks like it does at least to some extent....

Anyway, you learnt the lesson of the importance of diplomatic relationships, as you say. Thanks for sharing so many of your experiences in Civ, by the way, Lord of the Mark.

[lord of the mark]

I think Im finally on the point of winning on Prince level. Im playing as Arabs (Salaam Aleikum, thank you very much) and have for several tries now. Im ahead on points by a little bit in 1920, preparing for war with the Greeks, and in general things are going well.

It seems like its still (im playing vanilla) easier to win by making war on a select AI if you get behind - its gotten much harder to catch up to an AI using peaceful means even that it was in Civ2 - a stern chase is a long chase in this game. But even while war is less rewarding (no captured techs, no civ splits) its still better than trying to win a tech race from behind. This may be cause I havent got the hang of really using culture aggressively, for example or other new strategies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Diplomacy requires you to pick your friends and your enemies and stick with it. Befriending and trading with everyone will mean that everyone hates you.

Wonders are much lower power than before and if you build too many you will suffer.

There's a lot more crap terrain, so not all cities can be good.

Im finally getting a hang of the diplo, yet one more area where it helps to plan your strategy early. Very Sun Tzu kinda game, much less foregiving to those who act impulsively than Civ2 was.

It is hard to get out of the habit of wonder racing.

The crap terrain, OTOH, at least is obvious.

[Blaupanzer]

Weird stuff turns up in that crap terrain, like oil and uranium, just as it does in RL. Means some cities will be barely sustainable. Not just challenged, but doomed to being a "bump in the road," a speed trap in the road of life. Ah well, need the resource.

[Theben]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It is hard to get out of the habit of wonder racing.

I still do that, albeit only in my capital and maybe one more city. The rest go about building my empire.

Generally if I get the wonder great, if not well now I have more money and can ratchet up the science rate for a few turns.

[pedrojedi]

Originally posted by lord of the mark It is hard to get out of the habit of wonder racing.

I like wonder-building too, but as you noted, Civ4 changed some habits... There are few wonders that are worth waging war, like three gorges dam, for example.

There are always the favorites, of course. But boy, did I restart a lot of games on Civ 2 if I didn't get Hoover!

[Mace]

After a long hiatus (early 07-Nov08), I just bought BtS.

I must say, I was a fairly decent Vanilla player. For my first BtS game, I did a normal map/normal length game on Warlord as the Byzantines, and did "ok"--not great, but "ok".

(Starting next to Greeks and Babylonians doesn't do well for a rushing strat, with their good defensive units. )

I'd say to the original poster, moving from Civ2, I don't think I'd start on Noble or Prince. But at the same time, have some self-respect--don't play Chieftain. I find BtS to be more difficult than Vanilla. I wonder if I will feel that way after a few more games?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Mace
After a long hiatus (early 07-Nov08), I just bought BtS.

I must say, I was a fairly decent Vanilla player. For my first BtS game, I did a normal map/normal length game on Warlord as the Byzantines, and did "ok"--not great, but "ok".

(Starting next to Greeks and Babylonians doesn't do well for a rushing strat, with their good defensive units. )

I'd say to the original poster, moving from Civ2, I don't think I'd start on Noble or Prince. But at the same time, have some self-respect--don't play Chieftain. I find BtS to be more difficult than Vanilla. I wonder if I will feel that way after a few more games?

too late, ive been gone up from chieftain, and been struggling on Prince for weeks. I was finally so close - well ahead on points in the mid 20th century. and then the number 3 power starts on a spaceship. I hadnt yet had a real prince level space ship race, and I mishandled
it and lost, though just barely (I was determined to win the race, not to preempt it with another grinding war, or a spy attack)

I must say, in civ2 I really felt my whole civ was contributing to the spaceship, both cause more cities built parts at once, and cause i could use caravans, hurry production. Now its just a few big cities that do it, as the rest of the civ fades in relevance. I guess this was to balance better for less sprawling civs, but it makes the AC race end game into a somewhat abstract and somewhat tedious chess game.

[joncnunn]

Personally I found BTS easier than Warlords.
That has a lot to do with me having used Better AI Mod in Warlords (most of which made its way into BTS standard)

Another factor is the AI wastes too much on spy points & spying at the expense of the general economy.

[lord of the mark]

Finally beat Prince level.

As Aztecs, standard continental map, epic game. Vanilla. diplo victory in 1976 (I was going for domination, but a rival built the UN, I was elected SG, and I thought I would try the diplo victory election)

So should I try playing different maps and civs on prince, or make the leap to king (Again, not getting BTS right away)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Well, thank you LOTM, since I was just about to start a thread like this (only recently got a computer that can play the game, then picked up Vanilla Civ4 on impulse in the bargain rack at target).

So let me add a couple of questions/observations. Bear in mind that I'm still playing on low levels.

1) It seems like there's absolutely no penalty in this game for unprovoked aggression; I can just invade who I want, when I want, and it doesn't change attitudes of other civs or anything else. True?

2) Cities don't seem to get as big in this game as they did in Civ2. I'm not micromanaging, but I have played into the 21st century a couple of times without having a city over size 25. Is that common?

3) Does having more than one of a particular kind of resource multiply the effect of that resource? Or are extra resources strictly for trading?

4) I played Civ2 as a Rational Perfectionist, so I'm trying variations on that theme here. So far, Cultural/Philosophical (Frederick the Great) seems like my favorite. Toward that end, I note that 3 national wonders seem to enhance Great Artist production (Globe, Hermitage, Sistine), but I can of course only build two of them in one city. What I can't figure out is which two of them work best together; all the documentation I can find just says they "increase" the chance of Great Artists emerging. Any ideas here?

5) Let's say my state religion is Buddhism, but I also have the Hindu holy city in my empire. Is there any difference between the effect of a Buddhist temple and the effect of a Hindu temple in the Hindu holy city?

I think that's all for now. Thanks in advance for any insights!

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Well, thank you LOTM, since I was just about to start a thread like this (only recently got a computer that can play the game, then picked up Vanilla Civ4 on impulse in the bargain rack at target).

So let me add a couple of questions/observations. Bear in mind that I'm still playing on low levels.

1) It seems like there's absolutely no penalty in this game for unprovoked aggression; I can just invade who I want, when I want, and it doesn't change attitudes of other civs or anything else. True?

Seems that way. They care whether you are too friendly toward their enemies, but they don't automatically dislike you cause you are aggressive in general. No bad boy points.

2) Cities don't seem to get as big in this game as they did in Civ2. I'm not micromanaging, but I have played into the 21st century a couple of times without having a city over size 25. Is that common?

I haven't been playing to build big cities, so I'm not sure. I would think clever management of resources, irrigation, and civics could get bigger cities.

3) Does having more than one of a particular kind of resource multiply the effect of that resource? Or are extra resources strictly for trading?

Yes. If you're not trading theres no benefit to the second instance of the same resource. Unless you go to war and the baddies destroy your iron mine, its nice to have a back up.

[Unimatrix11]

Well, Rufus:

2) In the expansion ´beyond the sword´, you can build corporations, some of which add food to your cities. With that cities can reach and grow beyond 30.

4) Sistine Chapel is not a national wonder - it´s a great one, you can build it anywhere. If You want to know, which wonders produce great artisit points, check their tooltip - it will say something like ´+6 [symbol for great persons] ([type of person])´. Which one is the ideal combination depends on your cities (food, esp.) and your goals (e.g.: going for a cultural victory ?).

5) Tempels are all the same by default. Only the wonders of the spiral minarette, the library of sankore and the apostolic palace make them different, by adding 1 gold, beaker and hammer respectively to all (of the other civ´s, too !) religious buildings of the religion the builder had as the state religion at the time when the wonder was built. I dont know which ones are included in the vanilla game.

Wether in the Hindu holy city or not, both, the buddhist temple as well as the Hindu one, will make one of your citizen happy. State religion doesnt matter in this respect either.

BTS is really good expansion btw, and i recommend you get it - you will quickly forget about the vanilla game.