P12

I pretty much hate everything but the religious aspect of this game.
But I need to stick it out at least through one game before I can draw
conclusions.

I went around building up my cities until the early AD era. Then I
got tired of my three city neighbor giving me gripe all time. They
are upset because I wouldn't switch my much larger civ to their
religion after threatening me. So I decided to wipe them out.

Now it is close to year 1000. I can't build troops all that fast but
I went at them with what I could. Over time I managed to snag their
weaker defended city. Well in Civ 4 the culture boarders collapse
completely around the city. I have one workable square for food. The
size 9 city dropped to a size 1 over time. Trying to take their
remaining two cities just continually depleted my troops. So I instead
went with blowing out every improvement. They still keep up with me
on tech and have about 8 units in each of their two cities. It takes
at least two units to take out one of theirs. By the time I built the
necessary 32 units to take them out the would have 20 more.

If I can't take out a two city civ with no improvements I don't see
how I can win this game. I don't see how the AI can do anything
either. Plus it is up around 1200 ad and none of us can get past the
oceans. That means after all this time I only know two other civs.
For all I know the ret of the civs could be heading toward the modern
age.

Adam Webb

you NEED to bombard cities now. Its not like Civ3 where you can take around
10-20 units of inf or tanks and take everything with ease, you need a group
of units, like cannons/artillery, a few inf a few tanks etc...

You need to bombard the cities until there defence bonus is 0%, then you
need to use the collateral damage by "attacking" with the artillery too.....
this makes them attack the units themselfs, and it will also damage the
other units on the same tile.

Thats one reason why you cant have huge stacks running around because
artillery units can damage them so much.

You can also see what the predicted out come is by selecting your units and
clicking the right mouse button, and holding it down, while moving the arrow
over the city. It will have a green:red number... something like
12.5:10.9... those being the odds in the battle.

and, finaly if you just move the mouse over the city it will show you what
units are there, and what there strengths are (plus promotions) and also the
cities defence rating/bonus....

Hope this helps

oh, and have a read through : http://civ4info.com/Sullla/civ4_walk_1.html
this explains the system as well.
http://civ4info.com/Sullla/civ4_walk_4a.html is a good place to start.

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb

Michael Vondung

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:05:23 -0500, P12 wrote:


It is more difficult than in Civ3. As Adam said, you need to bombard cities
before you move in. Use catapults and cannons to take down the defense
rating of the city to 0% (it gets defense bonuses from buildings, terrain
and culture), then have the artillery do collateral damage (this will
likely result in the loss of your siege engines, so bring enough). After
that it is fairly easy to take over the city if you bring the right units.
If there are pikemen or spearmen in the city, don't just bring mounted
units. Diversity is king in Civ4 warfare, and use your promotions wisely.
Upgrade units when possible and you can afford it (I usually win wars only
because of upgrades).

Also, prepare for war before you declare it. If you don't have your
military gathered at the borders before you start the war, you'll waste
time because you'll not be able to produce units fast enough. Consider
switching civics for the war time. Slavery will allow you to sacrifice
citizens to rush military units, others will give your units promotions.
Don't neglect barracks in the cities that you use to churn out military.

Also, suck up to at least one of the strong AI civs and make them your
friend. If they go to war with you, you have a much easier time to deal
with a strong opponent. In my current "noble" game, the Egypts were the
strongest civ in around 500 AD. By 1200 AD, they had been wiped off the
map. Now, in 1999 AD, I'm about to finish the Japanese who had attacked me
(with huge stacks, on a broad line) in ca. 1600 AD. I had killed the Mali
in 3800 BC already, but they happened to start right next to me and I
rushed some warriors.

Anyway, the conquest victory is probably by far the hardest in the game.
But wiping out a civ or two is entirely possible.

M.

Daran

Adam Webb <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:


A defending city is by definition a huge stack - well, a stack at least. In
Civ3, a winning strategy when under attack by superior forces is to hole-up
in your cities, weather the attack, and bombard and counterattack with
mobile units that can get back into the city in one turn.

Your remarks suggest that this is not a winning strategy in Civ4. (Probably
counterattacking the attackers as they approach is, but weathering the
attack isn't.) Have the AI's shown any better strategy? If not, then I
expect human players will devise some, and have thereby a considerable edge
over the AIs.

--
We're Londoners, we just put the kettle on -- Avedon Carol

Daran

Adam Webb

thats still the best defence strategy, holding up in cities since cities
have such a big defence bonus..... however on attacks having 20 units on one
tile, and getting attacked by an artillery peice will make you cry, since it
will (possiblity) hurt *ALL* of those units.... thats why it might be better
to have 3 stacks of 7 or something...

--
From Overlag - Adam Webb


"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:il1c43-iqb.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...

P12

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:15:26 +0100, Michael Vondung
<mvondung@gmail.com> wrote:


My other nearby large neighbor are friends because my founding
religion spread to their cities. Then they later adopted it as their
main religion like myself. They have also been a good source of tech
trading. Unfortunately I accidentally discovered Confusism first
without knowing that was a religion. The city was nearby the smaller
civ and that spread to them. Since the majority of my cities where
already Buddhism and I am playing as India I didn't want to switch.

P12

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:23:41 -0000, "Adam Webb"
<adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:


Yes that should help a lot. I was one who rarely used bombardment in
Civ III. Right now they are just holding up in their cities waiting
out the attack. The bombardment should draw them out or destroy them.

I did notice about moving the cursor over the city and that is how I
know my current efforts are futile.

tooly

"P12" <nowhere@all.com> wrote in message
newsjk5n1hcj0pm2dsn649rf18ap28061sovd@4ax.com...

Harder to win than in Civ3? Maybe I'll pass on Civ4...call it quits. It
took me forever to find a winning strategy in Civ3.

2 questions:
Does Civ4 CHEAT!!!! [Civ3 cheated worse than a Chicago Democrat!!!]
Are there 'instant' cultural conversions [oooh, I hated that...turned it off
asap].

Has anyone beaten Civ4 yet...I mean who has a real life outside playing Civ4
24/7?

Michael Vondung

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:16:18 -0500, tooly wrote:


No, not in my experience. The AI is much improved compared to Civ3. If you
play on "noble", neither you nor the AI gets any bonuses. The AI interface
is open, so people can also write their own AIs.


I've won a number of "time" victories (by score) on "noble". I came close
to a few space and cultural wins. Conquest and domination victories are
very hard, though. The game is much more accessible than Civ3... I think
you'd probably enjoy it more. I certainly do.

M.