Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
3 
Report this post
In short, you need to learn the fundamental mechanics of this game from the ground up. Forget everything you think you know about Civ 4 and read up on it before you further reinforce any bad habits that you have. The issues you've outlined are far reaching and are indicative of serious mistakes being made at every level of your game. You might get some piecemeal advice here on Steam (if you can trust it), but civfanatics is where you need to go if you're actually serious about improving.
since 24 > 8 and well the seal has first strikes to make it worse.
but I assume the topic creator did something wrong, and didn't give enough information to figure out what it was.
which I'm not blaming him for. just saying he missed something and I require information that he did not provide.
That's pretty much the only possibility here, isn't it? I mean, I know this game, you know this game, every experienced player around here knows this game, and we all know it's not like what OP's describing. Seriously, if he were a little less dramatic and a little more rational about it maybe we could start figuring out what the problem is, but as it is I think that's something rather difficult to do.
The number problem would be further escalated if the OP is playing on marathon speed where unit cost is much reduced and opportunities for unit completion trebled, resulting in much inflated stack sizes for every civ.
I agree with Virgil here, that given this and other recent threads, it is clear that the OP is making a wide range of bad moves right from the start.
Honestly funniest ♥♥♥♥ I've read in a while
You should see OP's other posts then. This is like part 5 in an epic series of chronicles detailing how OP himself unknowingly ruins his day due to his lack of understanding of how this game works.
Civ4 is the worst. Civ 5 and 6 are better but the AI is stupid and easy to beat.
The Civ games are just bad war games.
Just find another game with better programming.
The one strat? There are countless, depending on what your aims are. If you're referring to the Cuirassier strat (which is arguably the most popular and effective warmonger strat and is very effective), that is certainly viable but there are many others as well. Elepults, Horse Archers, Praetorians, Riflemen/Cannons, Bombers combo'd with anything, nukes, the list goes on for breakout military strats for any given time period. If you know the fundamental mechanics, you can get pretty creative with how you pursue your chosen victory condition within the parameters of the game. If you understand the diplomacy system as well as how to wage war properly in general, you can also do much better at avoiding unwanted conflicts if you desire to pursue a more peaceful strategy instead... or punish an aggressive enemy who attacked you by making them pay you an arm and a leg to back off on your counterattack if you don't outright conquer them.
As for Civ being a bad wargame, that is definitely subjective. If Civ 4 is a bad war game, I'd challenge you to find me a 4x game that does it better - and no, Civ 5 and 6 are not improvements in warfare. I won't touch Civ 6 (plenty of others have), but in Civ 5 the AI is completely incapable of utilizing 1UPT effectively at all and can be hard stopped with a few ranged units with ease. That is hardly compelling gameplay. Every other system in the game was simplified and streamlined as well, which isn't terrible by itself, but the only things they replaced it with were stuff like the World Congress and Archaeology which were specifically placed in the midgame because by the devs' own acknowledgement, the midgame was a long, tedious and boring slog with nothing happening. Civ 4 is a much faster paced game from beginning to end.
If I'm thinking of a non 4x TBS game that is more war focused and probably does that piece better, it would be Heroes of Might and Magic 2 and especially 3, but they don't include all the other aspects of a 4x game like empire management etc. I've played a lot of 4x games and I have not encountered a single one that was as refined and balanced as this one, even ones that I absolutely adore like Alpha Centauri which is still charming as hell but doesn't even pretend to be balanced.
As far as combat and warfare are concerned, Civ IV beats (for instance) Paradox games any day of the week. In the 4x genre, it's the king. There's nothing that tops it except for games specifically designed for this purpose (battle and warfare simulators and the sort).
Hearts of iron I thought was a warfare simulator, mainly the logistics side.
Civ 4 meets what I want in a 4x game, but I admit the combat is lacking.
I'm not playing it for the combat. I'm playing it to build an empire.
Yeah, Total War has definitely a better warfare system than Civ 4. But well, Total war is a game about war, not about developping a civ to launch a mega space ship first. If you want a war game, don't play civ. It's much much more than a simple wargame (with sometime dumb AI), and quite different on some aspect. You shouldn't play civ and expect it to be 100% about war. It might be lacking but I think we all play it because we love the whole game, not only the warfare system.
As for the AI, they are pretty good for diplomacy, especially with mods. But yeah, they would probably suck without any bonus. But I think it's all the interest of the game. You're the player, you are supposed to be smarter than your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ computer. I never play under Noble difficulty for this reason. But if you think the AI is unfair just play in Settler. There are a lot of different difficulty settings.
Also iirc the AI normally don't have any bonus in the combat RNG. So OP either missed an important strategic factor (low HP, promotion, defense bonus, siege weapon and air support ...), or he had an absurdly amount of bad luck. You can always save scum and try a different move to reset the RNG in this case and see if you really had bad luck.
Also tip : press shift + right click to see your probability to win with a selected unit
didn't ruin me or anything, just delayed my victory a few turns. but the point is the AI has global vision, which always bugs me, when I don't. I mean it would make "SENSE" post satelights and Radar to HAVE global vision, but I don't.
it would make sense for a unit witih a MOV of 8 to have vision of 8 but it doesn't.
but its not an advantage the player doesn't have provided he can load an earlier save.