Oh! So I was getting iron from it then even though no one was using it? I didn't even realize it. I have no idea where to go to see what resources I actually *have* at any given time. =(
To get access to a resource you need to a) have it inside your borders, b) have a road connected to it, and c) have the proper structure put on it (farm, plantation, mine, etc.)
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Oh! So I was getting iron from it then even though no one was using it? I didn't even realize it. I have no idea where to go to see what resources I actually *have* at any given time. =(
To get access to a resource you need to a) have it inside your borders, b) have a road connected to it, and c) have the proper structure put on it (farm, plantation, mine, etc.)
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
It's perfectly fine for while you're learning, but just be aware that the workers prioritize things very very poorly and often builds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more farms (instead of cottages) and/or windmills (instead of mines) than you want. Although it may be biting off more than you can chew for now, learning to control your growth through the early/mid game is basically the key between going from novice to upper level play.
Oh! So I was getting iron from it then even though no one was using it? I didn't even realize it. I have no idea where to go to see what resources I actually *have* at any given time. =(
To get access to a resource you need to a) have it inside your borders, b) have a road connected to it, and c) have the proper structure put on it (farm, plantation, mine, etc.)
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
It's perfectly fine for while you're learning, but just be aware that the workers prioritize things very very poorly and often builds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more farms (instead of cottages) and/or windmills (instead of mines) than you want. Although it may be biting off more than you can chew for now, learning to control your growth through the early/mid game is basically the key between going from novice to upper level play.
Ahh... see, I was wondering about that. I think I was building too many farms as well... it just seemed like my people were ALWAYS in need of more and more food... it got to the point where pretty much everything I was making was to try and get more food going.
In other news, I just got stomped again trying to get up to flight. I think I'm going to try to not have a long-term goal in mind anymore when I play. I get too fixated on it, and I let everything else overrun me.
Oh! So I was getting iron from it then even though no one was using it? I didn't even realize it. I have no idea where to go to see what resources I actually *have* at any given time. =(
To get access to a resource you need to a) have it inside your borders, b) have a road connected to it, and c) have the proper structure put on it (farm, plantation, mine, etc.)
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
It's perfectly fine for while you're learning, but just be aware that the workers prioritize things very very poorly and often builds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more farms (instead of cottages) and/or windmills (instead of mines) than you want. Although it may be biting off more than you can chew for now, learning to control your growth through the early/mid game is basically the key between going from novice to upper level play.
Ahh... see, I was wondering about that. I think I was building too many farms as well... it just seemed like my people were ALWAYS in need of more and more food... it got to the point where pretty much everything I was making was to try and get more food going.
In other news, I just got stomped again trying to get up to flight. I think I'm going to try to not have a long-term goal in mind anymore when I play. I get too fixated on it, and I let everything else overrun me.
Uh. It doesn't work that way. They'll just max out on population eventually and growth will become stagnant. That's the natural way of things. You really shouldn't be messing around with what tiles a city is working too much anyway to begin. The AI does an excellent job of handling that on its own.
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
A general good guideline is to build a military unit or two at the start for defense/exploration, then a worker and settler (or settler and worker) and try to keep two or three up to date units built and defending every city. Once you get better and get a feel for how much danger you're in at any given time, you'll know when that's not enough or when it's even overkill. Try to build about an average of one worker per city, and early on, control your expansion carefully. Make sure you grab a coast somewhere and try to build cities near rivers and other places where they can quickly grow. Try to expand in every direction at once if it's viable to keep upkeep minimized, but don't be afraid at all to expand explosively in the midgame around the time you get Code of Laws and Currency and all the other upkeep reducers/cash boosters. Your economy will tank in the short term, but you'll make up for that in the later game since you've got a lot of territory. Besides, 10 cities producing science at 50% is well more efficient and useful than 5 at 90%. If you need a timeline of when you should be building new cities, just watch the AI, but they do tend to build about one or two more cities than they should, not to mention awful decisions regarding the taking of barbarian cities. On Settler, they're probably a bit slower about it than they should be, but whatever.
Oh, and don't build wonders just to build them. Most of them have a very narrow situation where they're useful. They're typically boss in that situation, but the rest of the time, they're a secondary or tertiary bonus that isn't worth the hassle. For the cost of the Hagia Sophia, for example, you could build just over 9 workers. That's likely more than double your current worker force, so you'd get more of a benefit by just doing that (GPP aside) and you can easily stop it if something else comes up and not have to worry about someone stealing it from you. And other things are just way more worthless than they seem. Stonehenge, for example, is nigh worthless for a Creative civilization outside of the GPP.
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
Should I start taking advantage of slavery at that point? I've been avoiding it, but I can see how it could be handy.
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
Should I start taking advantage of slavery at that point? I've been avoiding it, but I can see how it could be handy.
I just like how the discovery of bronze working naturally leads to slavery -
"Sire, we've discovered how to mold bronze!"
"Excellent. Mold some bracelets linked with a chain"
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
Should I start taking advantage of slavery at that point? I've been avoiding it, but I can see how it could be handy.
Maybe. Slavery's good for when you screw up (let them grow too much) and need to lower your population and/or your happiness threshhold suddenly drops and you don't have any good way to restore it again (for example, if someone stops trading a luxury resource with you and you don't want to go to war to get it back). It's pretty poor as a means of converting growth points into production though because you'll grow back well before the unhappiness penalty runs out. It's also useful in the more rare situation where you've got a relatively low growth cap, but a pretty high happiness cap. The production you gain from slaving away a population or two is usually much higher than the production you lose by having fewer people for a short time.
I love Civ but I suck at it so much. City management is not my strong point, and it seems that I advance way too quickly in terms of tech and before I know it my unique unit has already passed me by and my cities are still being defended by warriors.
Uh. That's pretty usual, especially for more upper levels of play. If you have an extremely strong border, then it really doesn't matter what your inner cities are defended by and why waste time, money and resources upgrading them? Obviously, you'll want to when you've got some spare cycles eventually, but I've gone well into the modern era with cities still defended by your little warriors just because they were under no threat at all. Often because my border was swarming with tanks pushing outward to devour my enemies, but it works for defense too.
And as for city management, you can do very well without micromanaging at all. Just don't build useless crap. That city on the coast with no rivals around doesn't need any culture buildings for example, and if a city has crap for commerce, libraries/banks/whatever are completely useless for it. Just be able to eyeball what buildings a city does and does not need and you can do rather well without micromanaging.
Started playing this game last night (CivIV, since this is what this thread is going towards) and yeah, I do suck at it. I normally win, but only because I spend my time learning stuff.
urahonky on
0
PunkBoyThank you! And thank you again!Registered Userregular
edited June 2008
I always tend to start out strong in Civ IV, but I usually screw things up when I start trading technologies. Then everyone else gets ahead of me...
And on an off topic note, that avatar cracks me up for some reason, Aroduc.
PunkBoy on
Steam ID:
The Linecutters Podcast: Your weekly dose of nerd! Tune in for the live broadcast every Wednesday at 7 PM EST, only at www.non-productive.com!
I have a problem build up defenses. I tend to make my cities into production workhorses, and at any sign of trouble, or a wish to invade, I start massively pumping out units. However, before that, most of my cities are defended by maybe one warrior, or an offensive unit left behind after an invasion. Rarely do my cities have more than one defender.
I downloaded Civ IV from Steam over the weekend. Troubled by the lack of gameplay music, I quickly ripped several LotR and Braveheart tracks and put them in the custom music folder. I selected the folder in the options menu, but there is still nothing playing. Do I need to convert the files to a certain format, or is the custom music for something different (multiplayer?).
And on an off topic note, that avatar cracks me up for some reason, Aroduc.
It's on a rotation of some 170 or so. Which one you're talking about will have to remain a mystery for all time.
Ah, crap, just noticed that.
It was the one with Winry talking with the goofy face.
Back on topic, anyone think they'll ever release a patch to fix BtS? I still only need one person to start a Golden Age. Not that I'm complaining about that, but a fixed game would be nice...
PunkBoy on
Steam ID:
The Linecutters Podcast: Your weekly dose of nerd! Tune in for the live broadcast every Wednesday at 7 PM EST, only at www.non-productive.com!
And on an off topic note, that avatar cracks me up for some reason, Aroduc.
It's on a rotation of some 170 or so. Which one you're talking about will have to remain a mystery for all time.
Ah, crap, just noticed that.
It was the one with Winry talking with the goofy face.
Back on topic, anyone think they'll ever release a patch to fix BtS? I still only need one person to start a Golden Age. Not that I'm complaining about that, but a fixed game would be nice...
Uh, that's correct. It got changed on purpose in BtS so every Civ should at least get one Golden Age. First one costs 1 GP, second costs 2 (can't use the same type), third costs 3, etc.
You downloaded it from steam, right? Steam would have it. Smaller downloads from other services wouldn't...
Nothing is playing ingame so far. I can hear some ambient music when I zoom in near towns (sounds like new versions of Civ 2 tracks?). I have only played 20-25 turns so far. Does it start playing later?
Oh! So I was getting iron from it then even though no one was using it? I didn't even realize it. I have no idea where to go to see what resources I actually *have* at any given time. =(
To get access to a resource you need to a) have it inside your borders, b) have a road connected to it, and c) have the proper structure put on it (farm, plantation, mine, etc.)
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
It's perfectly fine for while you're learning, but just be aware that the workers prioritize things very very poorly and often builds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more farms (instead of cottages) and/or windmills (instead of mines) than you want. Although it may be biting off more than you can chew for now, learning to control your growth through the early/mid game is basically the key between going from novice to upper level play.
Ahh... see, I was wondering about that. I think I was building too many farms as well... it just seemed like my people were ALWAYS in need of more and more food... it got to the point where pretty much everything I was making was to try and get more food going.
In other news, I just got stomped again trying to get up to flight. I think I'm going to try to not have a long-term goal in mind anymore when I play. I get too fixated on it, and I let everything else overrun me.
Uh. It doesn't work that way. They'll just max out on population eventually and growth will become stagnant. That's the natural way of things. You really shouldn't be messing around with what tiles a city is working too much anyway to begin. The AI does an excellent job of handling that on its own.
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
A general good guideline is to build a military unit or two at the start for defense/exploration, then a worker and settler (or settler and worker) and try to keep two or three up to date units built and defending every city. Once you get better and get a feel for how much danger you're in at any given time, you'll know when that's not enough or when it's even overkill. Try to build about an average of one worker per city, and early on, control your expansion carefully. Make sure you grab a coast somewhere and try to build cities near rivers and other places where they can quickly grow. Try to expand in every direction at once if it's viable to keep upkeep minimized, but don't be afraid at all to expand explosively in the midgame around the time you get Code of Laws and Currency and all the other upkeep reducers/cash boosters. Your economy will tank in the short term, but you'll make up for that in the later game since you've got a lot of territory. Besides, 10 cities producing science at 50% is well more efficient and useful than 5 at 90%. If you need a timeline of when you should be building new cities, just watch the AI, but they do tend to build about one or two more cities than they should, not to mention awful decisions regarding the taking of barbarian cities. On Settler, they're probably a bit slower about it than they should be, but whatever.
Oh, and don't build wonders just to build them. Most of them have a very narrow situation where they're useful. They're typically boss in that situation, but the rest of the time, they're a secondary or tertiary bonus that isn't worth the hassle. For the cost of the Hagia Sophia, for example, you could build just over 9 workers. That's likely more than double your current worker force, so you'd get more of a benefit by just doing that (GPP aside) and you can easily stop it if something else comes up and not have to worry about someone stealing it from you. And other things are just way more worthless than they seem. Stonehenge, for example, is nigh worthless for a Creative civilization outside of the GPP.
Blerg. Enough for now.
Ah, a plethora of great advice! Thanks!
See, that's what I think I was doing wrong then. I thought if the population started dropping I was doing something wrong, so I ended up inevitably micro-managing which areas were getting farmed and stuff. Next game I start, I'll try to leave that alone and see how it goes.
And I'll also try to avoid unnecessary wonders. I was figuring that they were always a good thing, so I was grabbing them as soon as they became available... which, as you point out indirectly, stunts my ability to build units that help me defend myself or expand my empire.
Cool! I'll try to apply some of this info in the next game. Thanks!
You downloaded it from steam, right? Steam would have it. Smaller downloads from other services wouldn't...
Nothing is playing ingame so far. I can hear some ambient music when I zoom in near towns (sounds like new versions of Civ 2 tracks?). I have only played 20-25 turns so far. Does it start playing later?
Yes. It's synced to the age you're in and I believe (though could be wrong) the strength of your culture. You won't really start hearing too much aside from ambient nature sounds until the Ren period.
You downloaded it from steam, right? Steam would have it. Smaller downloads from other services wouldn't...
Nothing is playing ingame so far. I can hear some ambient music when I zoom in near towns (sounds like new versions of Civ 2 tracks?). I have only played 20-25 turns so far. Does it start playing later?
Yes. It's synced to the age you're in and I believe (though could be wrong) the strength of your culture. You won't really start hearing too much aside from ambient nature sounds until the Ren period.
Interesting. I wonder, then, if it is applying the same rule to my custom tracks, or if it just doesn't read MPEG4s.
I'm going to take custom off for now, though, because I want to hear what the default music is like when it starts to play. Then I guess I will be able to confirm the custom music problem by changing it back.
You downloaded it from steam, right? Steam would have it. Smaller downloads from other services wouldn't...
Nothing is playing ingame so far. I can hear some ambient music when I zoom in near towns (sounds like new versions of Civ 2 tracks?). I have only played 20-25 turns so far. Does it start playing later?
Yes. It's synced to the age you're in and I believe (though could be wrong) the strength of your culture. You won't really start hearing too much aside from ambient nature sounds until the Ren period.
Interesting. I wonder, then, if it is applying the same rule to my custom tracks, or if it just doesn't read MPEG4s.
I'm going to take custom off for now, though, because I want to hear what the default music is like when it starts to play. Then I guess I will be able to confirm the custom music problem by changing it back.
I wish to invade Genghis Kahn. He has one archer and one warrior, with a level 3 city that is concentrating completely on food/gold - no hammers. Well, the city itself has one. This should mean a rather large number of turns until he gets a new dude, right? So why, roughly 10 turns after I declare war, does his army grow a new archer? Plus, the very next turn, he gets a new one.
At no point does his city level decrease, nor does he begin working other tiles.
I don't understand. I just want to kill off their civilization, is that so wrong?
Raughn: my solution was to turn off all the sound effects from the audio menu and then just have Pandora running in the background.
Man I am nearing the end of this awesome game. Three continents, two large, one small. I happen to start as Rome on a large continent all by myself. Finally during the Renaissance I explore and find everyone else, America is on the small continent and the other 5 are duking it out on the large one. I gain a foothold against Germany and try to expand but I'm limited to two cities on their coast. A few minor skirmishes with Spain and America and I decide that amphibious assaults are too much effort, I'm going for the cultural victory, only to discover that Gandhi is well ahead of me technologically and will probably win the Space Race.
I wish to invade Genghis Kahn. He has one archer and one warrior, with a level 3 city that is concentrating completely on food/gold - no hammers. Well, the city itself has one. This should mean a rather large number of turns until he gets a new dude, right? So why, roughly 10 turns after I declare war, does his army grow a new archer? Plus, the very next turn, he gets a new one.
At no point does his city level decrease, nor does he begin working other tiles.
I don't understand. I just want to kill off their civilization, is that so wrong?
Raughn: my solution was to turn off all the sound effects from the audio menu and then just have Pandora running in the background.
Yeah sometimes it gets frustrating. Last game I played I decided I was going to take Montezuma down for trying to bully me into giving him free techs the whole first half of the game. This fool's on the other side of the ocean (Inland Sea map) and he has the gall to throw around empty threats?
I realize I have a technological leg up on him and start organizing a massive invasion. Twenty tanks and at least 10 artillery units waited offshore in transport boats. I declare war and they immediatley move in. At this same time, three of my ICBM's are completed, ready for launch.
So I take down one of his shitty cities and then another. I decide to move on the capital, kicking it off with three consecutive nuclear strikes. Then my tanks and artillery move in, ready to steam roll this fool.
Keep in mind, this guy is still in the middle ages practically, fighting my tanks with arrows. By the time I move on the capital he has started to produce the basic rifleman. With nearly constant nuclear strikes, and twenty some tanks raining down the fire, this fucker has a seemingly unlimited supply of rifleman. So many, that he destroys nearly half of my mechanized force with black powder before I take the city out.
By that point I was so exhausted with the whole thing that I accepted his plea for a truce and decided I'd hit him later.
I dunno, Civ is awesome and all but I find the combat not only lacking but very frustrating. I liked how Rise of Nations worked, where if you put swordsman up against a tank, they'd get steamrolled even if it was 20:1. That's how it should be.
Well, A.) Realistically speaking, it's pretty easy to defend a city against tanks. They're kind of bad against... you know... streets, B.) Riflemen are only one tier below tanks, you shouldn't be able to steamroll them at all. Defeat with comparatively fewer troops, yes. Crush without effort, no. and C.) It sounds like you were repeatedly attacking and trying to grab as much as possible as quickly as possible, ie, not letting your tanks heal up. Especially if you took cities and then kept going. Using damaged units to keep pushing forward is pretty much always a big no-no and is liable to just get them all slaughtered.
So, back to the topic of Revolution, is there anyone who has and plays Civilization IV going to pick up Revolution? It's a different enough experience to me to warrant it, so I'll probably pick it up. It's a lot more vibrant and faster paced, and should be a lot of fun online since you can, you know, actually finish a game with friends in an afternoon. :P
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
it's certainly not an improvement in most areas, but it is different, and that's enough. city management is almost non-existant and warring is almost the only route to victory, but the battles are more fun than in civ iv. neat features like forming armies (a combined force of three of the same unit), 'overrun' (basically steamrolling opponents with a much lesser defence, as has been discussed here), easily identifiable upgrades which can really turn a battle around - they make it exciting to go to war.
there are other things that make it much better for quick play than just choosing a short-spanning, small civ iv game: leaders have really useful starting bonuses, whether it be a technology, a great person, or a building. if it's a tech, for example, it's a good one, and something people will be demanding off you for a long time to come. the bonuses for being the first to advance technologies are also great, and it prods you along in the case that you're neglecting areas of your play. lots of tangible rewards.
i haven't tried a game online yet, but it would suit multiplayer pefectly. at the moment i'm still getting used to this alien idea of actually going to war
it's certainly not an improvement in most areas, but it is different, and that's enough. city management is almost non-existant and warring is almost the only route to victory, but the battles are more fun than in civ iv. neat features like forming armies (a combined force of three of the same unit), 'overrun' (basically steamrolling opponents with a much lesser defence, as has been discussed here), easily identifiable upgrades which can really turn a battle around - they make it exciting to go to war.
there are other things that make it much better for quick play than just choosing a short-spanning, small civ iv game: leaders have really useful starting bonuses, whether it be a technology, a great person, or a building. if it's a tech, for example, it's a good one, and something people will be demanding off you for a long time to come. the bonuses for being the first to advance technologies are also great, and it prods you along in the case that you're neglecting areas of your play. lots of tangible rewards.
i haven't tried a game online yet, but it would suit multiplayer pefectly. at the moment i'm still getting used to this alien idea of actually going to war
So the worst parts of the Civ series are emphasized and the best part is downplayed? A pity, Civ on console sounded fun.
Actually, I've found that combat isn't necessarily the best option in Civ Revolution. If you want to go the peaceful route, it's quite viable, but it requires some adjustment from Civ 4. For example, city specialization is even more important in Civ Revolution than in Civ 4 since buildings, wonders, and great people give such huge bonuses. Also, gold is drastically more important in Civ Rev: my best game so far on the demo, I had a gold producing city that hardly had any access to production, but thanks to gold production rushing I was able to turn it into a beast of a town that was pumping out hundreds of gold a turn.
it gets much harder to sustain a small niche of specialized cities in the full game, because the ai comes against you unless you give them tech every five or so turns - especially towards the end, when you're close to victory. with the small maps as well it means you can't avoid rubbing shoulders with neighbouring civs, in which case they're even more aggressive. i'm not saying it can't be done, just that even with the easy multipliers on gold / tech (6 X bonus for library + uni / market + bank, plus more from whatever great people and wonders you have) it's a hell of a lot easier to go on the offensive and take cities, since you don't destroy their buildings and there are no improvements to worry about. it's either that or quickly fall behind because you're appeasing all the other nations with free technology every turn
it's certainly not an improvement in most areas, but it is different, and that's enough. city management is almost non-existant and warring is almost the only route to victory, but the battles are more fun than in civ iv. neat features like forming armies (a combined force of three of the same unit), 'overrun' (basically steamrolling opponents with a much lesser defence, as has been discussed here), easily identifiable upgrades which can really turn a battle around - they make it exciting to go to war.
there are other things that make it much better for quick play than just choosing a short-spanning, small civ iv game: leaders have really useful starting bonuses, whether it be a technology, a great person, or a building. if it's a tech, for example, it's a good one, and something people will be demanding off you for a long time to come. the bonuses for being the first to advance technologies are also great, and it prods you along in the case that you're neglecting areas of your play. lots of tangible rewards.
i haven't tried a game online yet, but it would suit multiplayer pefectly. at the moment i'm still getting used to this alien idea of actually going to war
So the worst parts of the Civ series are emphasized and the best part is downplayed? A pity, Civ on console sounded fun.
It is fun. It just simplifies certain things so you get to the meat of the game quicker and it's faster paced. You still build and upgrade cities, research technologies, create armies, and explore, but you won't have to deal with micromanaging workers and so forth. It also has more of a vibrant personality than it's PC counterpart.
I just wish the States had the same release date as PAL regions. You guys got it a month before us. I don't like this reversal. :P
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Posts
A good tip for that, too, is to just set workers to automated. They'll go about making roads, building structures, and upgrading them without you having to micromanage them. They seem to do a good job at that, so it's one less thing you have to worry about.
It's perfectly fine for while you're learning, but just be aware that the workers prioritize things very very poorly and often builds waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more farms (instead of cottages) and/or windmills (instead of mines) than you want. Although it may be biting off more than you can chew for now, learning to control your growth through the early/mid game is basically the key between going from novice to upper level play.
Ahh... see, I was wondering about that. I think I was building too many farms as well... it just seemed like my people were ALWAYS in need of more and more food... it got to the point where pretty much everything I was making was to try and get more food going.
In other news, I just got stomped again trying to get up to flight. I think I'm going to try to not have a long-term goal in mind anymore when I play. I get too fixated on it, and I let everything else overrun me.
Uh. It doesn't work that way. They'll just max out on population eventually and growth will become stagnant. That's the natural way of things. You really shouldn't be messing around with what tiles a city is working too much anyway to begin. The AI does an excellent job of handling that on its own.
Short of strange manipulations because of outside changes (+unhealthiness because of population/buildings 99% of the time), it'll just reach a certain point and stop growing naturally. The thing is that the unhappiness threshhold is typically a lot lower than the growth cap, and after that point, you're just generating pissed off citizens that add to the city's upkeep but don't work (and potentially cause all sorts of nasty other problems).
A general good guideline is to build a military unit or two at the start for defense/exploration, then a worker and settler (or settler and worker) and try to keep two or three up to date units built and defending every city. Once you get better and get a feel for how much danger you're in at any given time, you'll know when that's not enough or when it's even overkill. Try to build about an average of one worker per city, and early on, control your expansion carefully. Make sure you grab a coast somewhere and try to build cities near rivers and other places where they can quickly grow. Try to expand in every direction at once if it's viable to keep upkeep minimized, but don't be afraid at all to expand explosively in the midgame around the time you get Code of Laws and Currency and all the other upkeep reducers/cash boosters. Your economy will tank in the short term, but you'll make up for that in the later game since you've got a lot of territory. Besides, 10 cities producing science at 50% is well more efficient and useful than 5 at 90%. If you need a timeline of when you should be building new cities, just watch the AI, but they do tend to build about one or two more cities than they should, not to mention awful decisions regarding the taking of barbarian cities. On Settler, they're probably a bit slower about it than they should be, but whatever.
Oh, and don't build wonders just to build them. Most of them have a very narrow situation where they're useful. They're typically boss in that situation, but the rest of the time, they're a secondary or tertiary bonus that isn't worth the hassle. For the cost of the Hagia Sophia, for example, you could build just over 9 workers. That's likely more than double your current worker force, so you'd get more of a benefit by just doing that (GPP aside) and you can easily stop it if something else comes up and not have to worry about someone stealing it from you. And other things are just way more worthless than they seem. Stonehenge, for example, is nigh worthless for a Creative civilization outside of the GPP.
Blerg. Enough for now.
Should I start taking advantage of slavery at that point? I've been avoiding it, but I can see how it could be handy.
I just like how the discovery of bronze working naturally leads to slavery -
"Sire, we've discovered how to mold bronze!"
"Excellent. Mold some bracelets linked with a chain"
Maybe. Slavery's good for when you screw up (let them grow too much) and need to lower your population and/or your happiness threshhold suddenly drops and you don't have any good way to restore it again (for example, if someone stops trading a luxury resource with you and you don't want to go to war to get it back). It's pretty poor as a means of converting growth points into production though because you'll grow back well before the unhappiness penalty runs out. It's also useful in the more rare situation where you've got a relatively low growth cap, but a pretty high happiness cap. The production you gain from slaving away a population or two is usually much higher than the production you lose by having fewer people for a short time.
And as for city management, you can do very well without micromanaging at all. Just don't build useless crap. That city on the coast with no rivals around doesn't need any culture buildings for example, and if a city has crap for commerce, libraries/banks/whatever are completely useless for it. Just be able to eyeball what buildings a city does and does not need and you can do rather well without micromanaging.
And on an off topic note, that avatar cracks me up for some reason, Aroduc.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I downloaded Civ IV from Steam over the weekend. Troubled by the lack of gameplay music, I quickly ripped several LotR and Braveheart tracks and put them in the custom music folder. I selected the folder in the options menu, but there is still nothing playing. Do I need to convert the files to a certain format, or is the custom music for something different (multiplayer?).
Any help is appreciated.
You downloaded it from steam, right? Steam would have it. Smaller downloads from other services wouldn't...
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
It's on a rotation of some 170 or so. Which one you're talking about will have to remain a mystery for all time.
Ah, crap, just noticed that.
Back on topic, anyone think they'll ever release a patch to fix BtS? I still only need one person to start a Golden Age. Not that I'm complaining about that, but a fixed game would be nice...
Uh, that's correct. It got changed on purpose in BtS so every Civ should at least get one Golden Age. First one costs 1 GP, second costs 2 (can't use the same type), third costs 3, etc.
Nothing is playing ingame so far. I can hear some ambient music when I zoom in near towns (sounds like new versions of Civ 2 tracks?). I have only played 20-25 turns so far. Does it start playing later?
Ah, a plethora of great advice! Thanks!
See, that's what I think I was doing wrong then. I thought if the population started dropping I was doing something wrong, so I ended up inevitably micro-managing which areas were getting farmed and stuff. Next game I start, I'll try to leave that alone and see how it goes.
And I'll also try to avoid unnecessary wonders. I was figuring that they were always a good thing, so I was grabbing them as soon as they became available... which, as you point out indirectly, stunts my ability to build units that help me defend myself or expand my empire.
Cool! I'll try to apply some of this info in the next game. Thanks!
Yes. It's synced to the age you're in and I believe (though could be wrong) the strength of your culture. You won't really start hearing too much aside from ambient nature sounds until the Ren period.
Interesting. I wonder, then, if it is applying the same rule to my custom tracks, or if it just doesn't read MPEG4s.
I'm going to take custom off for now, though, because I want to hear what the default music is like when it starts to play. Then I guess I will be able to confirm the custom music problem by changing it back.
Putting in custom tunes is a pain anyway.
Tutorial for redoing any/every soundtrack in the game.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=168876
Assumably you'd just want the ambient ones, but bleh.
I wish to invade Genghis Kahn. He has one archer and one warrior, with a level 3 city that is concentrating completely on food/gold - no hammers. Well, the city itself has one. This should mean a rather large number of turns until he gets a new dude, right? So why, roughly 10 turns after I declare war, does his army grow a new archer? Plus, the very next turn, he gets a new one.
At no point does his city level decrease, nor does he begin working other tiles.
I don't understand. I just want to kill off their civilization, is that so wrong?
Raughn: my solution was to turn off all the sound effects from the audio menu and then just have Pandora running in the background.
BADLY.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Must kill Gandhi.
Yeah sometimes it gets frustrating. Last game I played I decided I was going to take Montezuma down for trying to bully me into giving him free techs the whole first half of the game. This fool's on the other side of the ocean (Inland Sea map) and he has the gall to throw around empty threats?
I realize I have a technological leg up on him and start organizing a massive invasion. Twenty tanks and at least 10 artillery units waited offshore in transport boats. I declare war and they immediatley move in. At this same time, three of my ICBM's are completed, ready for launch.
So I take down one of his shitty cities and then another. I decide to move on the capital, kicking it off with three consecutive nuclear strikes. Then my tanks and artillery move in, ready to steam roll this fool.
Keep in mind, this guy is still in the middle ages practically, fighting my tanks with arrows. By the time I move on the capital he has started to produce the basic rifleman. With nearly constant nuclear strikes, and twenty some tanks raining down the fire, this fucker has a seemingly unlimited supply of rifleman. So many, that he destroys nearly half of my mechanized force with black powder before I take the city out.
By that point I was so exhausted with the whole thing that I accepted his plea for a truce and decided I'd hit him later.
I dunno, Civ is awesome and all but I find the combat not only lacking but very frustrating. I liked how Rise of Nations worked, where if you put swordsman up against a tank, they'd get steamrolled even if it was 20:1. That's how it should be.
it's certainly not an improvement in most areas, but it is different, and that's enough. city management is almost non-existant and warring is almost the only route to victory, but the battles are more fun than in civ iv. neat features like forming armies (a combined force of three of the same unit), 'overrun' (basically steamrolling opponents with a much lesser defence, as has been discussed here), easily identifiable upgrades which can really turn a battle around - they make it exciting to go to war.
there are other things that make it much better for quick play than just choosing a short-spanning, small civ iv game: leaders have really useful starting bonuses, whether it be a technology, a great person, or a building. if it's a tech, for example, it's a good one, and something people will be demanding off you for a long time to come. the bonuses for being the first to advance technologies are also great, and it prods you along in the case that you're neglecting areas of your play. lots of tangible rewards.
i haven't tried a game online yet, but it would suit multiplayer pefectly. at the moment i'm still getting used to this alien idea of actually going to war
So the worst parts of the Civ series are emphasized and the best part is downplayed? A pity, Civ on console sounded fun.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
It is fun. It just simplifies certain things so you get to the meat of the game quicker and it's faster paced. You still build and upgrade cities, research technologies, create armies, and explore, but you won't have to deal with micromanaging workers and so forth. It also has more of a vibrant personality than it's PC counterpart.
I just wish the States had the same release date as PAL regions. You guys got it a month before us. I don't like this reversal. :P