Civ

[Monte Carlo]

Hi guys

 

As a strategy game sucker I am tempted to try out Big Sid's Civ games.

 

Any pointers which one (s), as a complete novice to the series, I should be trying out?

 

Cheers

MC

[pmp10]

Depends on your playstyle: Civ5 for warmongering, Civ4 for builders game.

Neither will be particularly gentle to a newcomer but they are still far easier than previous installments.

Edited June 5, 2012 by pmp10

[Zoraptor]

Civs are like Star Trek movies, even good, odd bad. Of the three generally available Civ games IV is the best and is regularly on sale all over the place.

 

SM's Alpha Centauri (ex GOG) is probably even better, though it is not technically a Civ game. As above though, none of them are particularly gentle on novices.

[Pidesco]

Civ IV is the best one for a newcomer. Buy the complete version and go nuts.

 

It's very, very addictive, though, and you should be careful when playing. Use the game's integrated clock and alarm.

 

Edit: As I understand it, you are a strategy game veteran, so you shouldn't have trouble wrapping your head around Civ.

[Humodour]

Hi guys

 

As a strategy game sucker I am tempted to try out Big Sid's Civ games.

 

Any pointers which one (s), as a complete novice to the series, I should be trying out?

 

Cheers

MC

 

Civ 4. I've heard not-so-good things about Civ 5.

 

Civ 4 is amazing. It's turn-based, though. As somebody who came from Age of Empires 1/2, it was a bit of a shock to the system. When I truly devote myself to finishing a Civ 4 game, I often forget to eat and sleep. It can be pretty harsh on the body - the games go for hours. It's more like lots of little games in one, since you go through the ages and that repeatedly shakes things up.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Krezack

[Humanoid]

Civ4 only got good after an expansion (or two, some may argue) so I still hold out hope for it, with the first expansion due later this month. But yeah, Civ4 Complete is probably the best bet for now and should cost next to nothing.

 

Alpha Centauri has a lot more personality though, contrast with Nimoy's narration in Civ4 it's a world away (in a literal way, too). The downside is that the technology tree, being sci-fi based, is a lot more abstract and less 'natural'. In addition, some might say Brian Reynolds' passion for philosophy might come off as pretentious, but I enjoyed it. Its stablemate, Master of Orion 2, is also probably worth trying. Going back further, there's also Master of Magic and Colonization, but that's getting close to the original Civ time, in all its EGA glory.

 

The ones to avoid are Civ3 which I didn't think was any improvement on Civ2, and the rival Civ:Call to Power series (which arose over a trademark dispute between Microprose and Activision over the original Avalon Hill wargame of that name).

 

 

 

Some random reminiscing: I started with the series when Creative bundled the first game with my Sound Blaster, along with a few other legacy Microprose titles such as Railroad Tycoon, F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 and Silent Service 2. In a way I'd say that was the dawn of my life as a PC gamer: sure I'd had access to the family PC for year, but aside from a few casual games like Tetris I mostly gamed on my NES. That Creative bundle changed my life!

Edited June 5, 2012 by Humanoid

[Monte Carlo]

Sounds like a Civ IV bundle is the answer. Thanks all.

[Tigranes]

Yes, Civ 4 Bundle. Let us know how you go!

[greylord]

As many have said already, Civ 4. You can get Civ 4 with all the expansions for not much money.

 

If you don't want to spend anything though, I think there are Civ and Civ 2 copies that are legit and free to download on the internet.

 

I'd stay away from Civ V, but that's personal opinion.

[Orchomene]

There is a freeciv on Linux too, I think.

[Malcador]

Civ 3 did add the neat idea of culture, implementation was horrible when waging war. Have fun with Civ 4, I never bothered to look, but hopefully there's some anti-SoD mod

[Monte Carlo]

Got the whole lot on Steam (game +3 exps) for

[Spider]

Civ IV with expansions is definitely the best of the series. Even so I am currently playing Civ V when I do play, which isn't that bad. It's not as good as Civ IV, but much better than Civ III. And I think after the coming expansion it will close in on Civ IV.

 

Overall, it's the best and most consistent game series ever. Even the low marks of the series are stellar games (well, maybe not Call to Power, but that doesn't count). I've been playing the games since Civ I and I still love them to death.

[Monte Carlo]

It's downloading now, am quite looking forward to it. I know this is a biiiggg question but any general advice for a compete n00b?

 

I'm very used to strategy games but this is a new one on me.

[Orchomene]

It's downloading now, am quite looking forward to it. I know this is a biiiggg question but any general advice for a compete n00b?

 

I'm very used to strategy games but this is a new one on me.

As a big sum up, I would say :

There are several ways to win a game, each one with its own focus. You should quickly decide which goal you set for your civilization (depending on the choice you made, the size of the world and your surrounding) and avoid too much dispersion from it.

Since there are many eras, you also have to decide how you will develop in accordance with the era.

So look at the technology and military unit trees and try to find your development order.

[Bendu]

Pretty hard to name a general advice, because on higher difficulty your playstyle should depend on the Civ you choose, but make sure to found a religion (via research), as it ensures you money. The more money, the bigger your army and empire.

[Monte Carlo]

Religion = $$$

 

Who'da thunk it?

[Enoch]

Religion = $$$

 

Who'da thunk it?

On lower difficulty levels, it works rather well. On higher difficulty levels, pouring early resources into founding a religion is usually a sub-optimal move. Getting those land-improvement techs and figuring out where the copper & horses are generally pays better dividends.

 

The longer-term problem with being a religion-monger is that the diplomatic penalties for having a different religion than your rivals are steep, and the AI civs tend to put a very high priority on prosthelytizing. The hammers you use to crank out Missionaries in a race to convert the outside world are often more useful elsewhere. Best option: Adopt whatever religion is dominant among your neighbors, let them spend all their production converting the masses (they'll even convert your cities if you have open borders), while your production is spent building units to conquer the holy city and reap the profits for yourself.

 

(Alternately, if all the early religions end up founded on another continent or something, make a beeline for the tech that founds Confucionism. That way you'll at least be able to build temples and benefit from religion civics.)

 

 

Once you get your feet beneath you, install the BUG mod. It changes nothing in gameplay, but adds a whole lot of improved feedback options. Tired of checking the diplomacy screen every turn to see whether anybody has any new techs to trade? Would like some warning before a city grows to the point where it becomes unhappy? Among other things, the BUG mod notifies you of stuff like this at the beginning of each turn, and it's very customizable.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Enoch

[Pidesco]

My general Civ advice:

 

Listen to Nucky,

[pmp10]

It's downloading now, am quite looking forward to it. I know this is a biiiggg question but any general advice for a compete n00b?

 

I'm very used to strategy games but this is a new one on me.

Take a look at civfanatics tutorials.

Cuban Isolationists succession game in particular provided a good intro to the vanilla civ4.

[Spider]

On lower difficulty levels, it works rather well. On higher difficulty levels, pouring early resources into founding a religion is usually a sub-optimal move. Getting those land-improvement techs and figuring out where the copper & horses are generally pays better dividends.

 

The longer-term problem with being a religion-monger is that the diplomatic penalties for having a different religion than your rivals are steep, and the AI civs tend to put a very high priority on prosthelytizing. The hammers you use to crank out Missionaries in a race to convert the outside world are often more useful elsewhere. Best option: Adopt whatever religion is dominant among your neighbors, let them spend all their production converting the masses (they'll even convert your cities if you have open borders), while your production is spent building units to conquer the holy city and reap the profits for yourself.

 

(Alternately, if all the early religions end up founded on another continent or something, make a beeline for the tech that founds Confucionism. That way you'll at least be able to build temples and benefit from religion civics.)

 

 

Once you get your feet beneath you, install the BUG mod. It changes nothing in gameplay, but adds a whole lot of improved feedback options. Tired of checking the diplomacy screen every turn to see whether anybody has any new techs to trade? Would like some warning before a city grows to the point where it becomes unhappy? Among other things, the BUG mod notifies you of stuff like this at the beginning of each turn, and it's very customizable.

 

I like trying to get one of the later religions, like Islam. Just for the extra money it brings. The early ones are typically a waste (but Islam you can typically get whenever, the AI rarely goes for it until super late). You don't have to change your state religion to one you have founded, just spread it around to make a little (or a lot) extra cash. Not sure what Enoch considers higher difficulty, but it works well for me on prince, which is what I typically play.

 

Edit: At least I think it's prince, it's been so long I can't remember.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Spider

[Humodour]

There is a freeciv on Linux too, I think.

 

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me. I need to try this out.

 

I know this is a biiiggg question but any general advice for a compete n00b?

 

Fail a lot. Keep trying.

 

Honestly there is too much to this game to begin to explain to somebody who hasn't played at least one game of it. For a start, there are like 5 different ways to win. And they ARE different. A cultural victory is completely different to a religious victory or a combat victory or a land coverage victory. Although they all share things in common, they'll all want different technology lines and different leaders and different types of city specialisation.

[Humodour]

This site is one of the more useful: http://www.civfanatics.com/

 

I am about to start a game as Carthaginians. They pulled me in this round (I go back to this game every few months and try a different style each time) because their leader has a huge amount of extra commerce (+1 gold on any +2 or more gold tile - which is a lot of naked tiles and ALL cottages), and the +1 happiness (+2 with monument) seems dead useful (way more so than extra culture or health) because extra happiness directly translates to extra workers when things are getting dire. Extra workers are far more flexible than extra health or culture.

 

What leaders do you guys choose and why? For what victory types? I do miss India's fast workers.

[Humanoid]

I recommend Sisiutil's starter guide, but only after playing a couple games unaided first to get a feel for the general game concepts in isolation. Note that Noble is the "balanced" difficulty level, i.e. neither you nor the AI gets any specific bonuses.

 

My own personal advice follows, but again, probably best to wait a couple games before applying any of it.

 

- Civ/Leader selection for beginners: Try to pick at least one expansion/economic trait: i.e. one of Financial, Organised, Charismatic, Expansive, Imperialistic. Then consider starting techs. Agriculture and the Wheel are the most generically useful, and Mining and Fishing are probably the biggest traps if you're unlucky with terrain. Also consider starting with a Civ that gets an early unique unit/building. This gives a leg up over Civs that get late ones such as the Panzer or F-15, since the game is often over by the modern era.

 

- Chopping. Cutting down a forest tile grants 20 production, or 30 after researching Maths. This is a huge benefit early on and is essential on mid-to-higher difficulties, learn it early and do it often.

 

- City placement. Having a tile that can produce at least 4 food is considered almost essential early game. Sure, endless fields of grassland might be appealing in the long term, but early on, relying on farmed grassland for growth is just plain too slow. This means a flood plain or a special food resource like fish, wheat, cows, etc. The exception to this rule is to try to grab essential strategic resources quickly - early game this means horses, copper, and iron. Do *not* however, build the city directly on top of a special resource. Once your core cities are built, specialise heavily, e.g. science city, military production city, and so forth.

 

- Civics: Don't think that just because you've researched a nominally more advanced civic, that it's more powerful and should be used. More likely, doing so will bankrupt you. A lot of people tend to be reluctant to take up Slavery for example, but sacrificing population that will probably end up unhappy anyway is a much better deal than it might look. This act is generally referred to in the Civ community as "whipping" and is an almost essential technique.

 

- Research. There is no "best" research order, what you should research is directly related to what kind of starting terrain you get and what's needed to improve it - e.g. Farming if you have wheat nearby, Animal Husbandry for pigs, etc. Once food is done, then a safe bet is to go for Bronze Working, to enable chopping, Slavery, and also the Axeman rush on your neighbour(s) if you're so inclined. Religions are easy to found on easy difficulties, but I suggest not getting into the habit because it flat out won't work on higher-than-neutral difficulties.

 

- Diplomacy. Leaders generally behave like the commonly-accepted real world traits of each. Gandhi will never declare war if you're above neutral with him, while Montezuma might be your bestest buddy ever but still backstab you at any moment. Isabella will have a fit if you refuse to adopt her religion, but Stalin couldn't care less. Mao will get annoyed at your Democratic government but Lincoln will love you for it, etc.

 

- Automated workers are stupid, don't do that - at least not early on (it's always sub-optimal, but the lazy can get away with it in the late-game). Don't spam roads like in earlier Civs, instead build them towards specifically required places only. 1.5 workers per city is the commonly accepted rule of thumb.

 

- War. Axemen rush is probably the earliest possible war option in general, unless you play a civ with a unique warrior unit replacement. This only remains viable while your foe is mainly defended by warriors and some archers at most however. Once that moment has passed, you'll start having to worry about combined arms instead of a mad rush - which generally means catapults, and a lot of them. 1/3 to 1/2 of a typical attacking stack in the mid-game are siege units.

 

Example:

 

To illustrate, take an attacking force of say, six swordsmen against a defensive force of three archers. With bonuses, on average what will happen is the first three swordsmen attacking will all die, each weakening one archer. The next three swordsmen then attack to finish off the archers. Net losses: three swordmen, and only one is able to move into the conquered city to protect from counterattack. Now add a catapult to the attacking force: Attack with the catapult first - it will probably die, but in the process damage all three archers. The first three swordmen are now much more likely to kill the archers outright. This leaves a net loss of just the one catapult, and leaves 4 units able to move into the city to defend it immediately. A second catapult makes it even more certain, and odds are decent that the second catapult will survive too.

 

 

- Once your opponents get Longbowmen, it may be time to consider shutting down the war effort and instead focusing on advancing to the next era. The medieval era is absolutely the hardest era to conquer in, as defensive units generally outgun any firepower you may have. Instead, bide your time, then blast them away with cannons and riflemen.

 

---

 

Huayna Capac of the Incas is the strongest leader *by far*. It's estimated that using this combo roughly lowers difficulty a whole notch, and you will find that he's banned from competitive multiplayer games.

 

Trait analysis, spoilered for space:

 

 

Aggressive: Nice leg up in the early-game where everyone is on equal footing tech-wise, your units being one full level above anyone elses might make the difference between a quick conquest of a nearby rival or a ruinous drawn out war. If you take this then make sure you make use of it early.

 

Charismatic: A sort of hybrid trait, which can make early war very rewarding as well as making for more productive cities which is good synergy.

 

Creative: A very strong early-game trait but not much use once the world has been mostly claimed. Excellent for blocking off land from other civs very early and also means your initial cities get up to speed much faster since the Monument no longer is required in any city. Combined this means Creative civs can more easily become the dominant Civ earlier than any other and set up an easy victory down the track.

 

Expansive: The health is a nice bonus but the faster worker and granary production is the real benefit here.

 

Financial: A trait that flourishes in the mid-to-late game and overall is probably the most powerful - especially in water-heavy maps. Early on, Organised probably trumps it for income purposes.

 

Imperialistic: Sort of like Charismatic I guess, except with a focus on more cities instead of bigger cities, not much personal experience with this.

 

Industrious: Sounds like a big bonus, but building wonders is generally a pretty limited activity past the early easy difficulties - learning higher difficulties usually means learning for foresake most wonders and going only for a few key ones.

 

Organised: Extra cash, basically. Simple but powerful when expanding.

 

Philosophical: Great people are fun, but this trait should probably be left alone until you're really comfortable with city specialisation and particularly the use of the Specialist Economy.

 

Protective: Usually considered the weakest trait, because if you're playing well you should be on the offense much more than you are defending. Nevertheless it's probably more of a minor economy/production related trait than a military one, as it allows you to get away with a smaller standing army in times of peace.

 

Spiritual: The most contentious trait, what you get out of it depends on how much you're willing to micromanage civics.

 

 

[Humodour]

With all of what Humanoid said above taken into consideration, just remember that one of the more fun aspects of games like Civ and Age of Empires is also role playing. So don't get too involved in the mechanics just yet when there is still the game's general atmosphere to take in. It's beautiful and fun.

 

The other thing is: you decide what difficulty you play on. Nobody knows unless you tell them. You could play on Warlord forever and have a blast while Enoch plays on Prince or whatever repeatedly. I'm currently getting comfortable on Noble, but that's because I have these weird foibles when it comes to gaming. I don't play the evil route in role-playing games, and I don't want to sacrifice my workers in Civ via slavery. But sometimes its nice to see more to a game than pure numbers, as fun as that can be.