How can I get the game to auto-set the leader name as the actual civ leaders instead of my own? Annoying to have to delete buttmuncherrtard5600 every game I start.
rng can be bullshit but the whole point is to work on your strategic element to mitigate the rng and work against bad rng
on deity, you won't be going against a 5 archer hill city with 6-7 catapults but 10 because you already acknowledge that you could very well lose 3-4 of them to bullshit luck
you take risks when you're desperate and when you can't help it
Just wait until you into cannon rushes and drafting units, then you'll realize how much faster combat is compared to the newer games and how fast you can topple a whole continent.
The ai in civ 5 and 6 is so moronic that we can't move on from 4. Firaxis has refused to release the civ 6 dll stuff and even then the civ 5 ai improvements like Vox Populi are overhyped, overrated like civ 5 in general. Civ 7 needs to bring doom stacks back to make the ai actually challenging, or Firaxis needs to actually improve their shitty ai instead of being greedy lazy fricks.
Lol, they dont want a harder game
They want a game that appeals to the normie tards playing candy crush 7 hours a day
4 was the last game intended for strategy game players. Also, even if they had a desire to make a good game this time around, you'd first have to get rid of all the diversity hires in there, primarily roasties at the top
The only important thing civ 4 does better than 6 is the much better ai, the ai cannot handle 1UPT, Firaxis refuses to code a better ai that can handle it and the new complex mechanics. While Civ 5 was a piece of shit because it forced you play tall as the optimal strategy (Global happiness and all that bullshit). 6 went back to the classic play wide focus making it simply better than 5, civ was always about building an empire fighting for resources not building 4 cities and turtleing. Ranking wise 6-4>>5>3>2. 6 and 4 are equal for number one imo.
Wrong
First of all, 1UPT is only one of the braindead AI aspects
They can't manage their economies properly, you can bankrupt them with questionable deals via diplomatic favors, selling them resources they won't even put to proper use, because they aren't programmed properly to use their gold to build up economy. Not to mention great work poaching, the fact that the AI won't consider who you are trading with and how much like it did way back in 4 etc
The AI will also artificially incentivize campuses at the expense of everything else, primarily commercial hubs (hence why it isn't uncommon for the player to get most of the great merchants all the fricking time). >went back to the classic play wide focus making it simply better than 5
I don't care about 5 but this is again one of the most braindead aspects of Civ 6.
In 4, going wide too fast WILL break your economy beyond repair and the overall strategy boils down to accurately determining when to expand and how viable expanding is. As late game nears and when you have the technological capacity and bolstered economic backbone, going wide doesn't come at an expense and is indeed beneficial to you.
What do we have in Civ 6 in comparison? You can literally blob without any repercussions whatsoever because it's always a net plus. Why? Because the amenity system is literally fricking irrelevant for you unless you're Scotland (In which case you're also better off going extremely wide in most of the cases). So we traded strategy and versatility of 4 and to some extent 5 for one size fits all approach of 6 where pumping out as many cities as you can is crème de la crème of every playthrough. >Ranking wise 6-4
You didn't play either one of them at a deity level otherwise you wouldn't type something moronic such as this.
moron.
The fundamental difference between two games is the simple fact that one of them is quite literally broken and it takes not being a moron to see that the culprit in question is 6.
>I don't care about 5 but this is again one of the most braindead aspects of Civ 6. >In 4, going wide too fast WILL break your economy beyond repair and the overall strategy boils down to accurately determining when to expand and how viable expanding is
Still a massive improvement over 5's "build le 4 cities and turtle with tradition" which is why it's ranked higher than 5, still a lot worse than 4's mechanics. You forgot the loyalty mechanic too. >The fundamental difference between two games is the simple fact that one of them is quite literally broken and it takes not being a moron to see that the culprit in question is 6
Civ 6 isn't broken the AI is.
>Still a massive improvement over 5's
Again, like I said, I'm not concerned much with 5 because I have a problem with your comparison of 4 and 6. I view them both as abortions of the systems that had tangible depth and strategy in 4. >You forgot the loyalty mechanic too.
you mean the mechanic that is 80% reliant on the randomness of whether the AI has a golden age or not? Whoa, I placed a governor and number went up, I'm ready to lead Battle of Canae now, I'm such a deep thinking strategist. The mechanic is shit and I've found the only way to make it seem impactful is to play deity games with two additional AI's which will inevitably make you boxed in and inevitably resort to war as a means of expansion rather than shitting out 10 cities before turn 10 and win like you normally would in 90% of cases. >Civ 6 isn't broken the AI is.
I suppose you are right in the fact that MP works hence you can't call it a broken game per se, but single player? AI is everything, it can be gamed and abused in so many ways it IS fundamentally broken. AI couldn't even use aircraft properly until the latest april patch - and it's still finicky. AI can neither pursue victory goals properly, like how it will build 3 spaceports at turn 200 and then for whatever the fricking reason not pursue exoplanet and boosters until turn 350
Have you ever seen an AI meaningfully pursue domination as well? Never.
The only victory type it's remotely capable of is religion and that's due to crazy ass emphasis on shitting out missionaries and apostles 24/7 without actually using faith to improve the economy
i tried civ 6 with some DLCs and it was such a clusterfrick that i just gave up almost immediately. i don't think the game is candy crush player friendly. i think they could have released a pile of dogshit for civ 6 (and they did) and people would have still bought it because it's civ (and they did)
Just an example the ai stacks their shit inside the city as soon as they saw my stack coming. There were like 4 units in before I showed up and about 2 twos after they doubled the garrison.
Also Justinian is half way across the map and he got a stack all the way over to me. If you think civ 5 or 6 are good you're a Black person homosexual bootlicker, 1UPT killed this franchise.
I'm playing warlord. I would have been fine had I not accepted Ramesses call to war on Justinian. Justinian was an butthole after he made peace with Egypt he refused peace turn after turn and showed up with 2 doom stacks and I've actually died now.
>I would have been fine
I'm sorry to break it to you buddy but you've lost that game 100 turns ago
Lemme give you a hand
Civ 4 strategies are really hard to figure out on your own because there's a lot of room for error and you'll likely take years to manage something like monarch or emperor by being 100% self taught
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm playing warlord. I would have been fine had I not accepted Ramesses call to war on Justinian. Justinian was an butthole after he made peace with Egypt he refused peace turn after turn and showed up with 2 doom stacks and I've actually died now.
I also forgot - download the BUG mod
it's a purely an interface mod that'll help you out a lot
It'll show when the AI is plotting to against someone to make war, it'll show a great person bar on the top etc etc handy stuff like that
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol I literally used that series to learn how to play above Prince. Absolute Zero is pretty good as well
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks. I've seen some of his videos but never watched a full video, I will now plus write notes.
yeah you lost because your economy is shit (and because you only took 1 city from monty since you didn't wait for catapults)
spam cottages instead of farms and build 2x as much cities, tile overlap is ok
and great plains map is kind of gimmicky, maybe try continents or terra
At the start was planning to kill the Aztects to get their iron but my warriors got wrecked by them. So I loaded a turn back and pivoted to build a city by the other iron and deer(like 1500 BC pretty late). They declared war on me before culture got the iron so I had to defend but afterwards I shit on them with praetorians and catapults. Sitting bull vassalized them before I could finish them off sadly. Thanks for the tips.
yeah you lost because your economy is shit (and because you only took 1 city from monty since you didn't wait for catapults)
spam cottages instead of farms and build 2x as much cities, tile overlap is ok
and great plains map is kind of gimmicky, maybe try continents or terra
Realism Invictus is nice, but it plays a lot different compared to vanilla because 60% of your game won't rely on slavery pop whipping
It's fairly well balanced, isn't bloated to hell and back like cavemen to cosmos and it gives a really unique and meaningful flavor to each civ due to all the unique units and improvements
Oh shit, thank you anon. I completely missed that option. Game is now pretty much flawless for my tastes outside of some aesthetic things that ultimately don't matter.
spamming cottages isn't a foolproof way to win
you need to have an optimal terrain for it as well, ideally river tiles due to their 1+ commerce bonus and floodplains to simultaneously grow the city
plains cottages are relatively suboptimal unless there's a river adjacency and you want those to ideally be workshops/farms when you hit communism/biology respectively
you need to consider and find a balance between food and cottages
don't listen to that other moron, sticking a cottage on every flatland tile that doesn't have a resource is perfectly reasonable. hell put some on the grass hills too.
i especially wrote out >that doesn't have a resource
precisely for autistic poindexter morons like you - that special kind of idiot that falls back to arguing on technicalities, and still gets it wrong
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that doesn't have a resource
so you take back your bullshit and now say it's ok to cottage GP farms?
keep digging your hole, moron
or it's just easier to admit you were dumb af, even moreso when you consider some of the most competent deity players out there don't do that meme shit all the time and for a good reason
If I start C2C in Ancient era will it be less bloaty and is the AI less brain dead?
Cause I can run prehistoric just fine but the AI is always left behind at it takes too many turns.
Haven't played this in a while but did anyone try out any of the alternate games Civ4 offered? I remember looking at that one sci-fi alternate game where everyone was a spacefaring ideological loony, and then this weird super-futuristic Space Hulk style game mode.
The space one is okay. Not a fan of the Charlemagne and 1000 AD scenarios, the map looks too ugly (mainly Europe) way too squishy. Civ 5 had way better scenarios than 4 imo.
As a casual Civ fan who has only played Revolution and a little bit of 5 can anyone give me the rundown on why this one is universally considered the GOAT?
It improved on civ 3. 5 and 6 also were mediocre compared to 4. 1UPT and 4 citites + tradition being the civ 5 meta were nonsensical, 6 improved on 5.
Civ 4 did everything better than 3 stop projecting moron, civ 3 is also much harder to get into you have to abuse half-backed mechanics and a broken tech tree.
As a casual Civ fan who has only played Revolution and a little bit of 5 can anyone give me the rundown on why this one is universally considered the GOAT?
don't listen to that other moron, sticking a cottage on every flatland tile that doesn't have a resource is perfectly reasonable. hell put some on the grass hills too.
It's a waste of time to stick them on every flatland, not optimal.
One thing Civ V still does better than every other game in the series is minimap borders. Civ VI was a regression in this regard, and Civ IV looks awful.
>its the least casual one
Civ 3 is the least casual, not in a good sense, the game doesn't tell you a lot and most of the governments are broken or dog shit. The tech tree is broken and you have to know the "good techs" or the ai will kill you. If you walked blindly into civ 4 you wont stand a chance but you'll do better than you would in civ 3.
How can any civ game be for "grognards"? The civ4 ai can be threating, meanwhile I've played like 11 civ 5 games on average difficulty and always wrecked the ai. The only time I've had trouble is in the pre-conditioned scenarios.
An AI that can actually present a challenge
Game balance designed around mostly subtle differences between civs with traits and UU/UBs, instead of gimmicky abilities that force you to center your entire play style around them leading to large differences between civs based on RNG factors like terrain
Civics that present you with actual choices instead of "just go tradition/rationalism every game lol"
A vast library of great mods, probably more than the rest of the Civ series combined
>Civ3 is worse than Civ4 in every metric except combat and unit attributes.
Civ3 AI is stronger than Civ4 because it is not gimped by the bloated and complicated game mechanics of 4. The more game mechanics there are, the harder it is to program an AI to follow them
Civ3 AI can't even use it's unit attributes to their full extent. It poorly uses ZOCs, poorly uses indirect fire (artillery), and overvalues unit HP and raw ATK/DEF stats when valuating units to produce. It doesn't care about cost so it can cripple it's own economy if you add any units that have population cost or some other expense. Economically and strategically the AI is mostly the same and it's agenda is excessive sprawl, and highest HP and ATK stat unit when they are restricted from sprawling by rival borders. Then at this point it goes into proto-doomstack to do it's major campaigns.
Civ3 has far and a way the best basic combat system design, and unit attribute design, but that is mainly it. Even counting the Civ3 AI variances (which are also present in Civ4 as well), Civ4 it is much more varied in how you can manage alliances and trade, which makes it much more robust than Civ3 and balances out any AI limitations between the two games (if they do in fact exist).
>Economically and strategically the AI is mostly the same
except that the Civ4 AI is burdened by the gimmicky game mechanics so it can't optimize the way a human player can
When the civ3 AI chops trees, it gets the same as the human player
When the civ4 AI chops trees, the human player gets more because they pre-chopped, had a state religion, proper civics, etc.
Over the course of a game of Civ4, the human player can accumulate a considerable edge by using/abusing the byzantine game mechanics that aren't as prevalent in Civ3
>When the civ4 AI chops trees, the human player gets more because they pre-chopped, had a state religion, proper civics, etc.
Which requires addition investment by the player to get those bonuses. Player would get the same if they just chopped forests at the same time the AI would. That doesn't mean the AI is dumber because of "more gimmicky game mechanics" (holy shit you're contrived), it just means they go for a resource in a less than optimal time. >Over the course of a game of Civ4, the human player can accumulate a considerable edge by using/abusing the byzantine game mechanics that aren't as prevalent in Civ3
Yeah because you can't metagame the frick out of Civ3, especially militarily? Give me a break. Also, not that this is exactly a positive about Civ4, but such minute "advantage" the player has from this metaknowledge is balanced for the AI in all their bullshit cheats, like free tech upgrades, sometimes straight up free units, and the like.
You probably don't even remember when you could replant forests in Civ3 and chop them again for resources, simulating the lumber industry, which the devs patched that out from the original release because the AI would never have the brains to replant.
>they go for a resource in a less than optimal time.
because there is more optimization in Civ4 the AI is more penalized, thus weaker, than with Civ3's more streamlined mechanics
Instead it Civ4 has to be more, >balanced for the AI in all their bullshit cheats, like free tech upgrades, sometimes straight up free units, and the like.
Civ4's AI has to be given more "bullshit cheats" to compensate for the more complicated game mechanics
instead of improving the AI, this franchise keeps adding more game mechanics with each iteration >You probably don't even remember when you could replant forests in Civ3
Sure I do. I remember talking about it in forums. Are you sure it wasn't a bug though?
Civ4 always becomes horribly slow to run when I get far enough into the game with mods, it takes minutes for a single end turn at one point. Is there any way to mitigate this, or is the game just too old and badly optimized to do anything?
Civ4's super poorly optimized. Runs like shit on all machines. Especially Nvidia cards. My previous PC, which could run Doom (2016) fine, would run so hard and get so hot that the graphics card's failsafe would kick in and crash the game.
how deluded one has to be to look for fault in the game instead of his shitty computer. I used to play civ 4 on a fricking macbook with an integrated graphics card and it ran perfectly fine you homosexual.
Is that why it's so fricking hard? I used to play Civ IV a ton in HS, recently started picking it back up and have been using RI, and the AI is raping me pretty consistently
you can play tall in 4 but it involves one of few strategies. generally coastal strat with great lighthouse and pyramids, or land strat with monarchy and alphabelt. both will allow you to crawl out of the hole eventually.
there are in between strategies like going with organize/aggressive zulu, or organized holy rome. these can go extremely wide when paired with courthouses and UB.
Yeah I've been trying to do One City Challenges recently, I was surprised by how far I can get with just one city. I still get out produced in the endgame when building spaceship parts however.
>you can play tall in 4
you can play tall and but as a means to an end - the end being winning as wide, at least on immortal and deity
you're not winning deity when frickers like catherine and suleiman are sitting on 17 cities while you jack off in your corner with 5 cities running rep
but you can and should mount a successful invasion force, usually a cuirassier or cannons rush to bring the big boys down
>raze all of theirs
not something done on highest difficulties and for a good reason
why would you pass on free infrastructure, luxuries and beakers? besides, unless you magically do your conquest in like 15 turns the AI will rush to fill the gaps you leave with settlers so lol you played yourself and made your job even more difficult
also you need to keep your vassals in check by growing your pop, size and score and why wouldn't you be vassalizing them after kicking them into submission so they can tech for you
no, it doesn't have more weight in comparison to capture, killing units is what primarily determines AI willingness to capitulate
Anyway, like it was said before, you don't raze unless you plan to immediately resettle a better location on your border which the AI ruined by settling his own city
You could make a case for razing desert cities with no resources attached to them or not any relevant ones to you in that specific moment of time that is, but generally you're better off capturing, always
I haven't played civ in forever, used to play only 3, V, and SMAC (the former 2 when I was a lot younger) I decided to pick up Civ IV and install RI because it sounded like everything I've ever wanted in a civ game. Played as the incas on settler difficulty as incas, so far too easy but I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing since no tips for civ IV apply and a lot of the tips for RI depend on you knowing how civ IV works. What are some general tips for the very early game, like how fast should I be expanding, civics/techs etc. I have always had a bad habit in any 4x game of never taking slavery related civics/policies/governments, and I feel like this is a habit I will need to kick with this game. Also, is there a way to see a civs unique abilities/buildings/units from the game start screen, or do I have to read through the entire civpedia before I even start a game?
I've also just started playing this mod so don't take what I say as gospel.
- I think that early aggression is really powerful, even if it is just razing a couple enemy cities to keep them in check.
- Generally speaking you seem to have a better
margin of error since the games last so long. Even if you screw up and lose a few wonders 1 turn from finishing it's not the end of the world
- There isn't as much of a rush for technologies as in vanilla since the game increases tech cost if you're too much ahead
- slavery is very fun to play and becomes a mechanic on the map, not just a civic (slave rebellion, specific slave improvements)
- you don't want to expand too fast at the beginning since commerce is harder to come by than in vanilla. In my current game I am on turn 300 with 4 cities and I can keep up with the AI just fine
- Difficulty wise I would almost say that RI is easier. Immortal feels like vanilla Emperor
How can I get the game to auto-set the leader name as the actual civ leaders instead of my own? Annoying to have to delete buttmuncherrtard5600 every game I start.
you can change the default name in an .ini file somewhere I can't remember which one.
alternatively rename your pc/user profile to whatever leader you're playing everytime
Wait until you get into mods.
It's a good game but holy shit the RNG based combat drives me insane. Glad they moved away from that.
just get first strike promotions / even out the RNG by making more units than the other guy
If RNG screws you over then you werent in a good position anyway, all the combat after IV was shit.
>the RNG based combat drives me insane
You never played a table top game with dice?
I guess you'd need friends for that...
>You'd need loser nerd friends for that...
ftfy
Loser nerd friends > no friends and no game
Cope, seethe, dilate.
projection
Cope harder
Female-tier insult, gb2reddit
rng can be bullshit but the whole point is to work on your strategic element to mitigate the rng and work against bad rng
on deity, you won't be going against a 5 archer hill city with 6-7 catapults but 10 because you already acknowledge that you could very well lose 3-4 of them to bullshit luck
you take risks when you're desperate and when you can't help it
Just wait until you into cannon rushes and drafting units, then you'll realize how much faster combat is compared to the newer games and how fast you can topple a whole continent.
The ai in civ 5 and 6 is so moronic that we can't move on from 4. Firaxis has refused to release the civ 6 dll stuff and even then the civ 5 ai improvements like Vox Populi are overhyped, overrated like civ 5 in general. Civ 7 needs to bring doom stacks back to make the ai actually challenging, or Firaxis needs to actually improve their shitty ai instead of being greedy lazy fricks.
Lol, they dont want a harder game
They want a game that appeals to the normie tards playing candy crush 7 hours a day
4 was the last game intended for strategy game players. Also, even if they had a desire to make a good game this time around, you'd first have to get rid of all the diversity hires in there, primarily roasties at the top
The only important thing civ 4 does better than 6 is the much better ai, the ai cannot handle 1UPT, Firaxis refuses to code a better ai that can handle it and the new complex mechanics. While Civ 5 was a piece of shit because it forced you play tall as the optimal strategy (Global happiness and all that bullshit). 6 went back to the classic play wide focus making it simply better than 5, civ was always about building an empire fighting for resources not building 4 cities and turtleing. Ranking wise 6-4>>5>3>2. 6 and 4 are equal for number one imo.
This district shit and governors totally put me off 6, just seems like more fluff.
Districts are pretty cool adds another layer of importance to the terrain and tile management, only problem is the ai is ass at handling it.
Wrong
First of all, 1UPT is only one of the braindead AI aspects
They can't manage their economies properly, you can bankrupt them with questionable deals via diplomatic favors, selling them resources they won't even put to proper use, because they aren't programmed properly to use their gold to build up economy. Not to mention great work poaching, the fact that the AI won't consider who you are trading with and how much like it did way back in 4 etc
The AI will also artificially incentivize campuses at the expense of everything else, primarily commercial hubs (hence why it isn't uncommon for the player to get most of the great merchants all the fricking time).
>went back to the classic play wide focus making it simply better than 5
I don't care about 5 but this is again one of the most braindead aspects of Civ 6.
In 4, going wide too fast WILL break your economy beyond repair and the overall strategy boils down to accurately determining when to expand and how viable expanding is. As late game nears and when you have the technological capacity and bolstered economic backbone, going wide doesn't come at an expense and is indeed beneficial to you.
What do we have in Civ 6 in comparison? You can literally blob without any repercussions whatsoever because it's always a net plus. Why? Because the amenity system is literally fricking irrelevant for you unless you're Scotland (In which case you're also better off going extremely wide in most of the cases). So we traded strategy and versatility of 4 and to some extent 5 for one size fits all approach of 6 where pumping out as many cities as you can is crème de la crème of every playthrough.
>Ranking wise 6-4
You didn't play either one of them at a deity level otherwise you wouldn't type something moronic such as this.
moron.
The fundamental difference between two games is the simple fact that one of them is quite literally broken and it takes not being a moron to see that the culprit in question is 6.
>I don't care about 5 but this is again one of the most braindead aspects of Civ 6.
>In 4, going wide too fast WILL break your economy beyond repair and the overall strategy boils down to accurately determining when to expand and how viable expanding is
Still a massive improvement over 5's "build le 4 cities and turtle with tradition" which is why it's ranked higher than 5, still a lot worse than 4's mechanics. You forgot the loyalty mechanic too.
>The fundamental difference between two games is the simple fact that one of them is quite literally broken and it takes not being a moron to see that the culprit in question is 6
Civ 6 isn't broken the AI is.
>Still a massive improvement over 5's
Again, like I said, I'm not concerned much with 5 because I have a problem with your comparison of 4 and 6. I view them both as abortions of the systems that had tangible depth and strategy in 4.
>You forgot the loyalty mechanic too.
you mean the mechanic that is 80% reliant on the randomness of whether the AI has a golden age or not? Whoa, I placed a governor and number went up, I'm ready to lead Battle of Canae now, I'm such a deep thinking strategist. The mechanic is shit and I've found the only way to make it seem impactful is to play deity games with two additional AI's which will inevitably make you boxed in and inevitably resort to war as a means of expansion rather than shitting out 10 cities before turn 10 and win like you normally would in 90% of cases.
>Civ 6 isn't broken the AI is.
I suppose you are right in the fact that MP works hence you can't call it a broken game per se, but single player? AI is everything, it can be gamed and abused in so many ways it IS fundamentally broken. AI couldn't even use aircraft properly until the latest april patch - and it's still finicky. AI can neither pursue victory goals properly, like how it will build 3 spaceports at turn 200 and then for whatever the fricking reason not pursue exoplanet and boosters until turn 350
Have you ever seen an AI meaningfully pursue domination as well? Never.
The only victory type it's remotely capable of is religion and that's due to crazy ass emphasis on shitting out missionaries and apostles 24/7 without actually using faith to improve the economy
i tried civ 6 with some DLCs and it was such a clusterfrick that i just gave up almost immediately. i don't think the game is candy crush player friendly. i think they could have released a pile of dogshit for civ 6 (and they did) and people would have still bought it because it's civ (and they did)
so this is what being born after 2000 does to a homie
Just an example the ai stacks their shit inside the city as soon as they saw my stack coming. There were like 4 units in before I showed up and about 2 twos after they doubled the garrison.
Welp I'm fricking dead. You would never see this shit happen in 5 or fricking 6 frick both those games, civ 4 is a masterpiece.
Also Justinian is half way across the map and he got a stack all the way over to me. If you think civ 5 or 6 are good you're a Black person homosexual bootlicker, 1UPT killed this franchise.
based justinichad dabbing on confucian incels
also
>turn 227
>52 beakers
yikes
that's bad even for settler
I'm playing warlord. I would have been fine had I not accepted Ramesses call to war on Justinian. Justinian was an butthole after he made peace with Egypt he refused peace turn after turn and showed up with 2 doom stacks and I've actually died now.
>I would have been fine
I'm sorry to break it to you buddy but you've lost that game 100 turns ago
Lemme give you a hand
Civ 4 strategies are really hard to figure out on your own because there's a lot of room for error and you'll likely take years to manage something like monarch or emperor by being 100% self taught
I also forgot - download the BUG mod
it's a purely an interface mod that'll help you out a lot
It'll show when the AI is plotting to against someone to make war, it'll show a great person bar on the top etc etc handy stuff like that
lol I literally used that series to learn how to play above Prince. Absolute Zero is pretty good as well
Thanks. I've seen some of his videos but never watched a full video, I will now plus write notes.
At the start was planning to kill the Aztects to get their iron but my warriors got wrecked by them. So I loaded a turn back and pivoted to build a city by the other iron and deer(like 1500 BC pretty late). They declared war on me before culture got the iron so I had to defend but afterwards I shit on them with praetorians and catapults. Sitting bull vassalized them before I could finish them off sadly. Thanks for the tips.
yeah you lost because your economy is shit (and because you only took 1 city from monty since you didn't wait for catapults)
spam cottages instead of farms and build 2x as much cities, tile overlap is ok
and great plains map is kind of gimmicky, maybe try continents or terra
>(and because you only took 1 city from monty since you didn't wait for catapults)
praet rush should be done before cats
>Damn. You chuds were right this game is fun as hell.
Wait till you see the modpacks.
Any favourite modpacks?
Realism Invictus is nice, but it plays a lot different compared to vanilla because 60% of your game won't rely on slavery pop whipping
It's fairly well balanced, isn't bloated to hell and back like cavemen to cosmos and it gives a really unique and meaningful flavor to each civ due to all the unique units and improvements
sword of islam
I just wish religion was like in later titles, I don't want to have to get stuck with judaism because of tech research order
just turn on turn pick religions?
Oh shit, thank you anon. I completely missed that option. Game is now pretty much flawless for my tastes outside of some aesthetic things that ultimately don't matter.
Spamming cottages makes sense thinking about it now, warfare is tied with economics in this game.
spamming cottages isn't a foolproof way to win
you need to have an optimal terrain for it as well, ideally river tiles due to their 1+ commerce bonus and floodplains to simultaneously grow the city
plains cottages are relatively suboptimal unless there's a river adjacency and you want those to ideally be workshops/farms when you hit communism/biology respectively
you need to consider and find a balance between food and cottages
Thanks wrote that down.
don't listen to that other moron, sticking a cottage on every flatland tile that doesn't have a resource is perfectly reasonable. hell put some on the grass hills too.
>dude just spam cottages in your GP farm lol
moron
that's why you'll never more away from warchief
your GP farm works three food resources and little else; the flatfland cottages are used by nearby cities
so you don't cottage everything all the time and there are exceptions on case to case basis?
got it, thanks for conceding my point
i especially wrote out
>that doesn't have a resource
precisely for autistic poindexter morons like you - that special kind of idiot that falls back to arguing on technicalities, and still gets it wrong
>that doesn't have a resource
so you take back your bullshit and now say it's ok to cottage GP farms?
keep digging your hole, moron
or it's just easier to admit you were dumb af, even moreso when you consider some of the most competent deity players out there don't do that meme shit all the time and for a good reason
If I start C2C in Ancient era will it be less bloaty and is the AI less brain dead?
Cause I can run prehistoric just fine but the AI is always left behind at it takes too many turns.
starting in ancient just exacerbates all the issues c2c has with AI and balance
Haven't played this in a while but did anyone try out any of the alternate games Civ4 offered? I remember looking at that one sci-fi alternate game where everyone was a spacefaring ideological loony, and then this weird super-futuristic Space Hulk style game mode.
The space one is okay. Not a fan of the Charlemagne and 1000 AD scenarios, the map looks too ugly (mainly Europe) way too squishy. Civ 5 had way better scenarios than 4 imo.
>way too squishy
Well most of the Earth maps for 5 are like that anyway I guess.
As a casual Civ fan who has only played Revolution and a little bit of 5 can anyone give me the rundown on why this one is universally considered the GOAT?
Nostalgia
Civ3 is the better strategy game and Civ5 has more interesting ideas and comfy graphics, 4 iscjust a pseud game.
It improved on civ 3. 5 and 6 also were mediocre compared to 4. 1UPT and 4 citites + tradition being the civ 5 meta were nonsensical, 6 improved on 5.
Civ 4 did everything better than 3 stop projecting moron, civ 3 is also much harder to get into you have to abuse half-backed mechanics and a broken tech tree.
Meant for
It's a waste of time to stick them on every flatland, not optimal.
One thing Civ V still does better than every other game in the series is minimap borders. Civ VI was a regression in this regard, and Civ IV looks awful.
The TL;DR is that its the CIV with the most strategic 'depth' (its the least casual one) and grognards like that
>its the least casual one
Civ 3 is the least casual, not in a good sense, the game doesn't tell you a lot and most of the governments are broken or dog shit. The tech tree is broken and you have to know the "good techs" or the ai will kill you. If you walked blindly into civ 4 you wont stand a chance but you'll do better than you would in civ 3.
How can any civ game be for "grognards"? The civ4 ai can be threating, meanwhile I've played like 11 civ 5 games on average difficulty and always wrecked the ai. The only time I've had trouble is in the pre-conditioned scenarios.
An AI that can actually present a challenge
Game balance designed around mostly subtle differences between civs with traits and UU/UBs, instead of gimmicky abilities that force you to center your entire play style around them leading to large differences between civs based on RNG factors like terrain
Civics that present you with actual choices instead of "just go tradition/rationalism every game lol"
A vast library of great mods, probably more than the rest of the Civ series combined
inb4 hurr durr but what about post-bio GP farms
>Civ3 is worse than Civ4 in every metric except combat and unit attributes.
Civ3 AI is stronger than Civ4 because it is not gimped by the bloated and complicated game mechanics of 4. The more game mechanics there are, the harder it is to program an AI to follow them
Civ3 AI can't even use it's unit attributes to their full extent. It poorly uses ZOCs, poorly uses indirect fire (artillery), and overvalues unit HP and raw ATK/DEF stats when valuating units to produce. It doesn't care about cost so it can cripple it's own economy if you add any units that have population cost or some other expense. Economically and strategically the AI is mostly the same and it's agenda is excessive sprawl, and highest HP and ATK stat unit when they are restricted from sprawling by rival borders. Then at this point it goes into proto-doomstack to do it's major campaigns.
Civ3 has far and a way the best basic combat system design, and unit attribute design, but that is mainly it. Even counting the Civ3 AI variances (which are also present in Civ4 as well), Civ4 it is much more varied in how you can manage alliances and trade, which makes it much more robust than Civ3 and balances out any AI limitations between the two games (if they do in fact exist).
>Economically and strategically the AI is mostly the same
except that the Civ4 AI is burdened by the gimmicky game mechanics so it can't optimize the way a human player can
When the civ3 AI chops trees, it gets the same as the human player
When the civ4 AI chops trees, the human player gets more because they pre-chopped, had a state religion, proper civics, etc.
Over the course of a game of Civ4, the human player can accumulate a considerable edge by using/abusing the byzantine game mechanics that aren't as prevalent in Civ3
>When the civ4 AI chops trees, the human player gets more because they pre-chopped, had a state religion, proper civics, etc.
Which requires addition investment by the player to get those bonuses. Player would get the same if they just chopped forests at the same time the AI would. That doesn't mean the AI is dumber because of "more gimmicky game mechanics" (holy shit you're contrived), it just means they go for a resource in a less than optimal time.
>Over the course of a game of Civ4, the human player can accumulate a considerable edge by using/abusing the byzantine game mechanics that aren't as prevalent in Civ3
Yeah because you can't metagame the frick out of Civ3, especially militarily? Give me a break. Also, not that this is exactly a positive about Civ4, but such minute "advantage" the player has from this metaknowledge is balanced for the AI in all their bullshit cheats, like free tech upgrades, sometimes straight up free units, and the like.
You probably don't even remember when you could replant forests in Civ3 and chop them again for resources, simulating the lumber industry, which the devs patched that out from the original release because the AI would never have the brains to replant.
>they go for a resource in a less than optimal time.
because there is more optimization in Civ4 the AI is more penalized, thus weaker, than with Civ3's more streamlined mechanics
Instead it Civ4 has to be more,
>balanced for the AI in all their bullshit cheats, like free tech upgrades, sometimes straight up free units, and the like.
Civ4's AI has to be given more "bullshit cheats" to compensate for the more complicated game mechanics
instead of improving the AI, this franchise keeps adding more game mechanics with each iteration
>You probably don't even remember when you could replant forests in Civ3
Sure I do. I remember talking about it in forums. Are you sure it wasn't a bug though?
Civ 3 is ass compared to 4. Also civ 4 has ai enhancement mods.
Immensely comfy game, has such a great atmosphere.
there is nothing clever about sophistry. any idiot can do it.
Civ 3 definitely gave better WW1 vibes though, late game wars are fun.
Civ4 always becomes horribly slow to run when I get far enough into the game with mods, it takes minutes for a single end turn at one point. Is there any way to mitigate this, or is the game just too old and badly optimized to do anything?
Install the game on an SSD and lose the mods and it'll run pretty swell. I recall BUG mod in particular being one that slowed the game a lot for me.
Civ4's super poorly optimized. Runs like shit on all machines. Especially Nvidia cards. My previous PC, which could run Doom (2016) fine, would run so hard and get so hot that the graphics card's failsafe would kick in and crash the game.
what card? the game runs fine on my 1050ti
how deluded one has to be to look for fault in the game instead of his shitty computer. I used to play civ 4 on a fricking macbook with an integrated graphics card and it ran perfectly fine you homosexual.
Gonna try noble now
get BUG and buffy
I'm really impressed by enemy AI in K-MOD.
How does AI in Realism Invicta compare to it?
IIRC Realism Invictus has K-mod integrated, so the AI is similar.
Is that why it's so fricking hard? I used to play Civ IV a ton in HS, recently started picking it back up and have been using RI, and the AI is raping me pretty consistently
you can play tall in 4 but it involves one of few strategies. generally coastal strat with great lighthouse and pyramids, or land strat with monarchy and alphabelt. both will allow you to crawl out of the hole eventually.
there are in between strategies like going with organize/aggressive zulu, or organized holy rome. these can go extremely wide when paired with courthouses and UB.
Yeah I've been trying to do One City Challenges recently, I was surprised by how far I can get with just one city. I still get out produced in the endgame when building spaceship parts however.
>you can play tall in 4
you can play tall and but as a means to an end - the end being winning as wide, at least on immortal and deity
you're not winning deity when frickers like catherine and suleiman are sitting on 17 cities while you jack off in your corner with 5 cities running rep
but you can and should mount a successful invasion force, usually a cuirassier or cannons rush to bring the big boys down
you can play tall in the sense you use those 5 cities to shit out a good enough army to raze all of theirs without technically expanding
>raze all of theirs
not something done on highest difficulties and for a good reason
why would you pass on free infrastructure, luxuries and beakers? besides, unless you magically do your conquest in like 15 turns the AI will rush to fill the gaps you leave with settlers so lol you played yourself and made your job even more difficult
also you need to keep your vassals in check by growing your pop, size and score and why wouldn't you be vassalizing them after kicking them into submission so they can tech for you
I'm pretty sure razing a few cities is one of those things that add a hidden modifier to increase the AI's willingness to capitulate
no, it doesn't have more weight in comparison to capture, killing units is what primarily determines AI willingness to capitulate
Anyway, like it was said before, you don't raze unless you plan to immediately resettle a better location on your border which the AI ruined by settling his own city
You could make a case for razing desert cities with no resources attached to them or not any relevant ones to you in that specific moment of time that is, but generally you're better off capturing, always
I haven't played civ in forever, used to play only 3, V, and SMAC (the former 2 when I was a lot younger) I decided to pick up Civ IV and install RI because it sounded like everything I've ever wanted in a civ game. Played as the incas on settler difficulty as incas, so far too easy but I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing since no tips for civ IV apply and a lot of the tips for RI depend on you knowing how civ IV works. What are some general tips for the very early game, like how fast should I be expanding, civics/techs etc. I have always had a bad habit in any 4x game of never taking slavery related civics/policies/governments, and I feel like this is a habit I will need to kick with this game. Also, is there a way to see a civs unique abilities/buildings/units from the game start screen, or do I have to read through the entire civpedia before I even start a game?
I've also just started playing this mod so don't take what I say as gospel.
- I think that early aggression is really powerful, even if it is just razing a couple enemy cities to keep them in check.
- Generally speaking you seem to have a better
margin of error since the games last so long. Even if you screw up and lose a few wonders 1 turn from finishing it's not the end of the world
- There isn't as much of a rush for technologies as in vanilla since the game increases tech cost if you're too much ahead
- slavery is very fun to play and becomes a mechanic on the map, not just a civic (slave rebellion, specific slave improvements)
- you don't want to expand too fast at the beginning since commerce is harder to come by than in vanilla. In my current game I am on turn 300 with 4 cities and I can keep up with the AI just fine
- Difficulty wise I would almost say that RI is easier. Immortal feels like vanilla Emperor