Civ IV Difficulty Questions

[stray]

I want the game to spread civs across an entire game map, instead of compressing them in one small area. I hate hate hate that shit. There's no point in playing a big map if it never gets used. Is there some setting I'm missing here?

Also, someone tell me about mods. Are there any good ones?

[WayAbvPar]

If you use the Terra map setting, it puts all the civs together on one continent (aka the Old World) and leaves a 2nd continent for expansion and exploration (the New World). I just realized this like a week ago..I guess it helps to actually read the descriptions.

[Sky]

I usually play on the largest map setting, archipelago. Game is so boring I've never finished a game yet.

[Litigator]

I usually play on the largest map setting, archipelago. Game is so boring I've never finished a game yet.

Archipelago is boring, and large is boring. The big map allows civs too much room for uninhibited expansion, and then it takes forever to eliminate one.

Better to play the standard world size. I use "continents." I know people like to build up umolested in the early game, but if you organize your settings to ease your early game, you end up with a really obnoxious late game, where you have to move all your units in by transport  to attack. Everybody on their own continent is a very bad thing. on a Continents map, if you're in good shape coming into the age of exploration, you've probably already subdued two opponents.

[WayAbvPar]

I like large maps. I would just as soon never fight a war; I like to beat other civs into submission with my 1337 culture.

[stray]

I like large maps. I would just as soon never fight a war; I like to beat other civs into submission with my 1337 culture.

Same here.

What I think I really need right now is a sim though....


Anyways, thanks for the tips. My mistake was like yours: I play Terra. Now I know not to.

Retried with the Continent setting + High Sea level (Archipelago is too much water for me). I'm now sharing a landmass with 3 other nations. That's more like it.


Also, is the expansion worth getting, or is it all war based stuff (err....I figured it was since it's called "Warlords")?

[Jade Falcon]

Warlords was a good buy,they added more civilizations,changed up some of the starting traits as well as added some new ones.The latest patch changed up the AI quite abit making it more of a challenge,it plays it's military abit better then it did previously,one down side of the new AI is it seems to have mega stacks now of armies which can be a real pain in the ass,altho a good bomber force can take care of that for you.If you like an unmolested early game then the re added great wall wonder is a must build as it keeps out the barbarians from your borders.

[Sky]

It's not the archipelago or huge maps that are boring. I've always played Civ that way. I like to develop my empire, take on great projects, etc. I prefer SMAC for the more confrontational gameplay, because it had slightly better diplomatic options iirc. Civ just seems to be getting worse as time goes on, the second is still the best imo, though there have been some improvements.

My biggest gripe with the Civ series is all the great stuff Reynolds did that never makes it into the Civ series. Colonization and SMAC > Civ.

[Roac]

The AI tends to make very poor use of military naval units, so continents or pangea tend to be better games.  On the other hand, the AI is VERY fast about sending settlers on ships.  Pilgrims can't get on the boat fast enough.  I've actually seen the AI plant naval settlers ontop of a ruined city before I could build/walk my unit there.

My preference is continents or pangea.  I'll play otherwise only when I want to force myself to build more navy (I tend to outright ignore it), but I've found it is easy to just isolate myself from conflict.  Being on a continent means your neighbors tend to get irked when culture borders move back and forth, which along with good roads means early conflict. 

Stray, are you playing Fall of Heaven II?  That's the only way I play Civ IV anymore.  It's like Master of Magic, and even in its drastically unfinished state, kicks much ass.

[Sky]

Point being some of us don't play it as a wargame. War in my games is just incidental.

[stray]

Stray, are you playing Fall of Heaven II?  That's the only way I play Civ IV anymore.  It's like Master of Magic, and even in its drastically unfinished state, kicks much ass.

Nope, never played it. I don't know anything about mods. I'll check into it.

I just bought that expansion though, so I'm gonna see what that has to offer for now.

As far as combat goes though, I'm with Sky. I don't really enjoy playing that way. Not that I don't like combat at all, but Civ is one of the few games that offers other paths to success. So I like to take advantage of that. I'll just play other strategy games for combat....I like RTS combat more anyhow.

[Merusk]

I dunno, Sky, I don't get your gripe with it.  Then again I'm not a big fan of SMAC.  I like it and all, but the min-maxing of the units, and the prototyping and all that crap is suboptimal to me.  I much prefer the Civ unit approach, and Civ IV finally implemented all of the SMAC city & world interfaces I wanted to see.   Hell I liked Civ3, too, though.

[Roac]

Nope, never played it. I don't know anything about mods. I'll check into it.

I just bought that expansion though, so I'm gonna see what that has to offer for now.

CivFanatics is hosting the group for it.  Files are hosted elsewhere, but can be downloaded from there.  On the combat side they have interesting things, like units that cast different types of magic depending on how you upgrade them.  There's plenty of non-war toys as well, including the ability to terraform (Desert->Plains->Grassland, or add trees).  Spies allow a variety of sabotage against someone you're competing with without going to war, and if you grab the Hidden Nationality bonus there's a LOT you can do to mess with them without going to war.  You also can build units that are mini-great people, and add +20 culture (as opposed to +1000) to a city per pop.  Religion and civics have all been reworked, and offer a lot for someone wanting to go the culture victory route.  Just beware that barbarians and animals are much meaner in FoH than they are the regular game, so you'll want a decent early military to protect settlers and cities. 

[Lum]

Another vote for the Fall From Heaven mod. It really makes Civ 4 a better game.

[Tebonas]

Wow, thanks for that tip. That mod really looks quite promising.

[stray]

Warlords thoughts:

I don't really care about 75% of the things this expansion was made for (seems like it's main selling point are historical scenarios).

Don't care about warlords or military conquest.

But........


I get to play Hannibal. That might be worth my $29.  :mrgreen:


[EDIT]

Also, is there some kind of hack around that lets time go by even slower? "Marathon" is bullshit. Probably two or three days playing time at the most. I want something that'll last for at least a week.

[Roac]

Play bigger maps.  You'll spend more time per turn, especially if you have a large empire (more cities = more focus).

[stray]

I play the biggest maps available. All that does is give me more tasks (not bad...but I'm just saying). What I want is to not hit 2000 B.C. until like 10 hours into the game.

[dusematic]

I play the biggest maps available. All that does is give me more tasks (not bad...but I'm just saying). What I want is to not hit 2000 B.C. until like 10 hours into the game.

Dude...slower than marathon?  On the biggest maps?  Sounds like shit.

[stray]

That's a worse answer to my question than Roac's.

[dusematic]

Well no offense but it wouldn't even make sense to go slower. 10 hours before you're even in 2000 BC?  That's 10 hours of fighting with axemen.  Nothing would happen.  You couldn't support more than a few cities with that level tech so it would be pointless. 

[stray]

OK, so 2000 BC might be a bit of a stretch. Still though, I want things like the Bronze Age or Classical Age to be bigger milestones than they really are, and I want more time to situate myself and expand within them.

Also, the way I play, I'd probably have better than Axemen in 2000 BC. The idea of "Time" is fucking whack in Civ games. For example, in the game I'm currently playing, I already have Musketmen in 200 A.D.

[dusematic]

Two things:


(1) You're allowed to pick what tech you want to research.  Therefore you can streamline your efforts, towards, say, "muskets" and get there faster at the expense of other technologies.

(2) Consider the difficulty level you're playing on.  Muskets  at 200 A.D. is perhaps a sign that things are too easy.  At a higher difficulty level, you have to worry about defending yourself, and that will slow down your research.  Also, I haven't played the game in a few weeks, so mayb'e I'm wrong, but I believe you can cap technology development at a certain age.

[stray]

Heh....Just another thing to mention about Warlords:

Stalin should not be the new leader for Russia. That's nutty. Fucker was worse than Hitler (might as well include him too btw).

Not to say Genghis Khan was any better, but Stalin is a bit too close for comfort. If they were going to go that route, they should have used his 16th century equivalent: Ivan the Terrible.

[edit]

Besides, Stalin was not the leader of Russia. He was the leader of the Soviet Union ;). Big difference.

[dusematic]

Being the leader of Russia and the leader of the Soviet Union isn't really that big of a difference.  Saying Stalin was worse than Hitler is a bit of a stretch, but I guess that debate could be considered splitting hairs.  But really, that type of PC attitude where game designers would be hesitant to add Stalin to a game annoys me.

[stray]

Give me a fucking break. It's not PC. It's saying a guy who killed 20 million Russians shouldn't get the credit of being a representative of Russia.

[dusematic]

Sure.  Quick when you think of Russia who do you think of first? 

[Merusk]

Peter the Great & Lenin.

[dusematic]

I anticipated at least three  responses like that, but my point stands.

[Merusk]

 The thing is, being the "Warlords" expansion I'd expect the extra leader for each country to be a military choice.  In Russia's case, yeah, that'd be Stalin.

[stray]

Sure.  Quick when you think of Russia who do you think of first? 

God, that's an insulting question.

Seriously? Dostoevsky. He's my favorite writer.

Oh, you mean leaders?

Peter the Great and Lenin.

Lenin might have been an ugly beast as well, but he didn't intentionally work against the Russian people. If you're going for modern communist representatives of the USSR, then he'd be a better choice. If you're going for tyrants, then the passage of time makes Ivan a better choice. If you're going for something that represents the more noble/more tempered aspects of a civilization's leaders, then Peter is a better choice (which is usually the trend with Civ -- i.e. Washington and Roosevelt for US -- Lincoln in past games, Gandhi for India, Churchill or Elizabeth for England, Saladin for Arabs, etc..). Thinking Stalin is the first thing I should think of about Russia is retarded and uneducated on a level that saddens me. Even moreso than the fact that you liked Top Gun.

[stray]

The thing is, being the "Warlords" expansion I'd expect the extra leader for each country to be a military choice.  In Russia's case, yeah, that'd be Stalin.

England gets Churchill for a Warlord leader. Rome gets Augustus.

Surely, if Stalin was a valid choice for Russia, then they could have done something better for those two.

[dusematic]

Sure.  Quick when you think of Russia who do you think of first? 

God, that's an insulting question.

Seriously? Dostoevsky. He's my favorite writer.

Oh, you mean leaders?

Peter the Great and Lenin.

Lenin might have been an ugly beast as well, but he didn't intentionally work against the Russian people. If you're going for modern communist representatives of the USSR, then he'd be a better choice. If you're going for tyrants, then the passage of time makes Ivan a better choice. If you're going for something that represents the more noble/more tempered aspects of a civilization's leaders, then Peter is a better choice (which is usually the trend with Civ -- i.e. Washington and Roosevelt for US -- Lincoln in past games, Gandhi for India, Churchill or Elizabeth for England, Saladin for Arabs, etc..). Thinking Stalin is the first thing I should think of about Russia is retarded and uneducated on a level that saddens me. Even moreso than the fact that you liked Top Gun.

It was a rhetorical question not aimed specifically at you.  I'm glad your favorite writer is Dostoevsky. Maybe we can start a The Brother's Karamazov discussion group.  Stop being a pretentious dweeb.  My point is that most people associate the country with the man.  Your average guy can't tell you who Boris Yeltsin or Mikhail Gorbachev is, but they definitely know who Stalin is.


And fuck you if you think Top Gun wasn't a good movie, or if you think that the fact I do bespeaks anything more meaningful about my personality.

[stray]

Reading Dostoevsky is not being pretentious. It's just being out of touch.

Not that out of touch though. It's gotten me laid. I think.

Top Gun sucks. It says a lot about you.

[dusematic]

Right on. Reading Dostoevsky gets you laid and the movies we like are windows into the soul.