Civ IV Succession Game? - Page 5

On January 10 2010 23:23 Zavior wrote:
You could probably kill netherlands now that you have copper, plenty of forests and slavery available. And you seem to have very very very few workers :O

btw do you have 4000bc save?(turn0)

On January 11 2010 06:42 Luddite wrote:
So after spending far too much time playing Civ IV, I have to say reading this thread is kind of funny. People that are new to the game just don't understand what's important and what isn't. Talking about what order you found cities in, whether or not to build the oracle, whether or not to rush with your UU (the dog soldier sucks, btw. He's worse than a regular axemen usually). None of that stuff matters. All you really need to worry about is making sure that you have enough workers to keep your people productive, enough food to grow them fast, and that you settle as many cities as you can as fast as you can. If you do that, you'll win up through ~monarch easily.

On January 11 2010 06:42 Luddite wrote:
So after spending far too much time playing Civ IV, I have to say reading this thread is kind of funny. People that are new to the game just don't understand what's important and what isn't. Talking about what order you found cities in, whether or not to build the oracle, whether or not to rush with your UU (the dog soldier sucks, btw. He's worse than a regular axemen usually). None of that stuff matters. All you really need to worry about is making sure that you have enough workers to keep your people productive, enough food to grow them fast, and that you settle as many cities as you can as fast as you can. If you do that, you'll win up through ~monarch easily.

On January 11 2010 06:42 Luddite wrote:
So after spending far too much time playing Civ IV, I have to say reading this thread is kind of funny. People that are new to the game just don't understand what's important and what isn't. Talking about what order you found cities in, whether or not to build the oracle, whether or not to rush with your UU (the dog soldier sucks, btw. He's worse than a regular axemen usually). None of that stuff matters. All you really need to worry about is making sure that you have enough workers to keep your people productive, enough food to grow them fast, and that you settle as many cities as you can as fast as you can. If you do that, you'll win up through ~monarch easily.

On January 11 2010 11:41 Biochemist wrote:


You obviously know the game much better than I do. If I try to found more than three cities in the early game before I tech up to the $$ buildings, I run out of money and my research stops. What am I doing wrong?

On January 11 2010 13:09 Fatmatt2000 wrote:



While I dont disagree that I suck at the game:

That stuff gets talked about alot because those big grand strategy goals, like going for oracle, or when to attack, are things that can be discussed and talked about on the forum, and are big ideas that set up how the next player plays and the outcome of future turns, while things like proper worker management arent necessarily conducive to conversation on a forum of what is at best casual civ players.

On January 11 2010 14:18 igotmyown wrote:


There's never been a civ iv guide which teaches priorities correctly. The thread is more typical than funny. Be content to see what happens.

On January 11 2010 06:42 Luddite wrote:
So after spending far too much time playing Civ IV, I have to say reading this thread is kind of funny. People that are new to the game just don't understand what's important and what isn't. Talking about what order you found cities in, whether or not to build the oracle, whether or not to rush with your UU (the dog soldier sucks, btw. He's worse than a regular axemen usually). None of that stuff matters. All you really need to worry about is making sure that you have enough workers to keep your people productive, enough food to grow them fast, and that you settle as many cities as you can as fast as you can. If you do that, you'll win up through ~monarch easily.

On January 11 2010 14:18 igotmyown wrote:
There's never been a civ iv guide which teaches priorities correctly. The thread is more typical than funny. Be content to see what happens.

On January 11 2010 16:46 igotmyown wrote:
Concerning succession games: the organizer (falcynn) and the person who initiated the game are responsible for making it run smoothly. If they don't put in the effort, then people get confused and forget, and turns aren't completed on time.

Second, everybody playing the same number of turns isn't as effective as playing to certain milestones or major decisions. 20 turns of war might require just as much attention and decision making as 40 turns of economic recovery. 5 turns late game might have more action than those 20 turns of war.

On January 11 2010 23:02 duckett wrote:


That's not true imo. REX'ing is not really the way to go, as there are a lot of restrictions on city placement and unless you turn the no. of ai's down on normal maps (pangaea at least) you will not have time to build many cities before getting isolated. The most successful games I have are generally the ones where I build one or two settlers, develop my cities by 2000 to be productive, and axe rush/sword rush/later cat rush a neighbor (preferably one with a religion).

Speaking of which, the dog warrior is not worse than a normal axeman because he does not require copper. You can start spamming 4 str units as soon as you research bw, which is usually the first tech players get. If the players had known willem was so close (actually he might be a little far for this) they could have started building dogs with city raider I and chop/slave them out at a 2:1 ratio with willem's archers while willem still had one city. The same rush applies to, but is actually better for, maya with its holkan (though they need to research bronze working + hunting).



http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/
really, really good info