Civ IV Tactics

Remove all ads!

Yeah, that's one of the benefits of getting a superior unit very early on. If used properly, they get many, many experience points. In the last game where I played as the Mongols, I had three Keshik units that got to Level 7 (!) which requires 37 combat kills. Of course, that also means that you get to upgrade them to level 7 knights, and later, level 7 cavalry. They were the backbone of my military the entire game until I got tanks.

 

I like the idea of Charismatic civs too. Cheaper Promotions. Winston Churchill will be nasty with his Redcoats...

 

Gnarff,

What do you use to get additional leaders to chose from? Are these official add-ons or mods?

 

Yes, they released the Warlords expansion pack this week. I got it Tuesday, and haven't played much else since.

There's six new civs, New leaders for several of the previous civs, and three new traits...

There are also nine campaign scenarios and a new Greap Person type, the Great General.

I highly reccommend it...

 

Oooh! Tell me more! I can imagine that the Great General improves something militarily. Do they function similarly to the way armies worked in Civ III? What are the new leader characteristics, and what do they effect?

 

Great General: They generate as your units win battles, and periodically, one pops up in one of your cities (or with your Camp in the Barbarian Horde Scenario). You can A: have it join a city as a super specialist which gives units built in that city an extra 2 EXP (huge because barracks only give 3 exp now), or B: Build a Military Academy in a city (like building a regular acadamy) which increaces military production in said city by 25%, or C: Have it join a unit in the field, dividing 20 exp among the units (evenly as possible) on that tile and attaching to one unit (of your choice) to enable special promitions like Combat 6, Medic 3 and Leadership (bonus EXP). It also automatically upgrades the unit you attach it to and it doesn't reduce to 10 exp on upgrade. Meaning, you attach to an axeman with 25 exp when you get Maces, it becomes a Maceman with 25 exp.

The three new traits are Imperialistic, Charismatic and Protective.

Imperialistic gives Cheaper settlers and faster Generation of Great Generals.

Charismatic gives +1 Happiness in all cities and reduces promotion requirements by 25%.

Protective gives cheaper Walls and Castles plus Archery and Gunpowder units get free CG I and Drill I.

 

Wasn't there something similar to the Great General in Civilisation III? I remember that it always gave a massive advantage if you could somehow pull off getting one because it meant you could finish some crucial wonder (like Forbidden Palace in a farout corruption ridden city) instantaneously.

 

There was something like that. You could use the unit to finish a wonder, or conversely, you could build an army, in which three units would be bound together and attack as one group. The army wasn't invincible, and if kept attacking with it repeatedly you could lose it, but because the damage was spread out evenly among the three units (and I think there was a wonder you could build that upgraded the army from a three unit army to four) it was practically impossible to kill at full health.

However, it seems like Great Generals are different than all the other great people that are produced, in that you get great general points by winning battles, not building wonders, or being the first to discover a particular technology.

Of the new leader characteristics, charismatic seems particularly strong. A happiness boost is always good when playing on higher difficulty levels, and the reduced leveling requirements for all units can't possibly hurt. If there is a leader that is both charismatic and expansionistic, that would give a bonus to both happiness and health, meaning you could really put off building support structures in your cities for a while longer, thereby indirectly aiding military production.

The only getting four points for a barracks is an odd change, but not a huge inconvenience. You're still starting with a unit that has one promotion, you just need two victories instead of one to get that second promotion. Plus, things like the Pentagon and West Point (provided they still provide +2 experience points) will mean you can still produce units with two promotions. The only difference is now the maximum starting total is seven instead of eight.

The only one I don't particularly like is Imperialistic. Cheap settlers seem really cheesy early in the game. On the higher difficulty levels where the computer already has significant advantages over you, if it can now produce settlers quicker than you early in the game, you're totally screwed.

[ August 01, 2006, 13:54: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

HB: That function is now taken over by Great Engineers, who can rush Great wonders. They seem to be among the hardest leaders to get when you really need them though.

Actually, I haven't tried Imperialistic. There are only 5 leaders with that trait. Victoria of the English, Genghis Khan, Cyrus of Persia, Julius Ceaser and Catherine the Great of Russia. I really should try them. Ceaser would be interesting...

 

So has imperialistic replaced expansionistic? Most of those leaders used to be expansionistic.

 

No, Both traits exist, but no civ has both traits. Just like no civ has Aggressive and Charismatic...

 

OK so some leaders are changed, and some are completely new? Out of curiosity, which leaders are now considered expansionistic? I admit that I find it odd that they have both types in the game. I'm trying to envision a civilization that was imperialistic, but not expansionistic, and I can't fathom how you can be so. The entire concept behind imperialism is to expand the areas you control. That having been said, I suppose (early in the game at least) that you can be expansionistic without being imperialistic. But it just doesn't work the other way around.

[ August 03, 2006, 18:36: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Aldeth, check http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/warlords/ for info on the leaders.

I would argue that a civilization can be expansive but not imperlialistic if they leave the culture of conquered places intact - that is, to be imperialistc you have to try to convert areas to your way of life, IMO. By this way of thinking, the other way around can also be possible if a (new) leader of culturally diverse areas start to force them into one people.

 

Expansive grants Cheap Granaries and gives health bonus toall cities in their civ.

Imperialistic gives cheaper settlers to build more cities earlier and bonuses to Great General production.

Imperialistic spreads faster, while expansionistic supports larger populations.

I'm playing my current game as the Ottomans. They are Expansive and Organized (big cities with lower upkeep), and a Musketman UU. I took down Stalin with Axes and Swords, and am debating a strike against Ragnar, hopefully before his Berserkers (Macemen) come online. I can get a huge stack at his Capital when I declare war, so I think I can pull this off...

 

The Ottomans sound very good indeed. I am much better playing with any of the organized leaders. The cheap upkeep in cities means I can get a lot out of science. My two favorite civs are the Americans with Washington, because he's organized and financial (big, big bucks) and the Japanese (only Tokugawa pre-expansion) because he's organized and agressive. However, I also thought that Caesar with the Romans was also both expansive and organized, although that certainly could have changed in the expansion. If any civilization was imperialistic, it certainly was the Romans.

 

Organized and Financial are two more traits that no longer co-exist. Washington is now Charismatic and expansive.

Another trick I'm toying around with is the specialist economy. You put your science slider to 0 and get all your research from Specialists (if you get the Pyramids, Representation gives a bonus to science from every specialist you have). It also makes it a little easier to conduct war because you don't have to build every improvement in every city, and upkeep doesn't kill you. In fact, you sometimes find yourself with a surplus of Gold when you need to go to war...

 

Well, I got the expansion and played my first game last night. I played as the Vikings, and berserkers are the freaking bomb. Unfortunately, I had to settle for a turn based victory on Prince difficulty. I was playing on continental land masses, and as it turned out there were only two continents on the entire map. It took me way too long to conquer my continent, and I was already in the 1800s by the time I attempted my invasion of the other continent, which was owned about one third by the Egyptians and two thirds by the Chinese. I then experienced something I have never seen before...

I took the first Chinese coastal city with relative ease. I had tanks and infantry (including two level 6 infantry units, each lead by a great general). They had originally been axemen, became berserkers, then riflemen and finally infantry - they were the backbone of my military for the entire game. The Chinese at the time had riflemen as their main defensive units, and cavalry as their main offensive unit. So I was technologically advanced, and I felt that with 4 tanks, 2 artillery and 2 super infantry units, that it would be a sufficient invasion force to establish a beach head.

I couldn't have been more wrong. Like I said, I took the first city in two turns. All eight of my units survived, and I moved them into the city to heal before moving on. After one turn of resting, the city got hit by what appeared to be the entire chinese military. They threw the kitchen sink at me. It seemed like the AI brought every military unit it had and attacked the city with it. I was attacked in one round by dozens of cavalry, riflemen, grenadiers and even a few cannons. I wasn't too concerned when the first few units attacked, because I had superior units, so I felt that even if they had brought something like 8-10 units to reclaim the city, I'd be fine. The Chinese seemed to have a limitless supply of troops. I can't explain this. I must have killed about 20 cavalry units, about 10 grenadiers, 10 riflemen, and a few cannons. The computer used 40-50 of his units to destroy 8 units, but the strategy worked, and I was knocked off the continent. I still cannot believe how many units he brought to bear. I probably only had about 50 units in total in my entire civilization, and he was able to mobilize 40-50 and get them to that city in three turns (the two rounds it took me to take the city, and then one more). It was then that I made a decision to strengthen my navy, because it was clear the Chinese (just like in real life) would be able to fight a war of attrition against me, and I had to prevent then from getting transports to my coast. I reinvaded China in the 1900s, this time with modern armor and mechanized infantry, but at this point it was much too late in the game to hope for a domination victory.

 

I like playing on Pangea maps, where I know where everyone is. I don't have to worry about Invading another continent...

Another thing that will make China difficult to fight is that their riflemen start with CG I and Drill I. If it was Qin, he'd have cheap Forges online too.

My current game as Hatty of the Egyptians, I used Warchariots and Swords to take out Shaka, but now I'm stuck with three other "peaceful civs" and we're all keeping pace technologically. I'm thinking that I'll need to switch briefly to US to buy up all the improvements I have on the go, then change off to Feudalism and Theocracy and take the fight to someone near by. I think that Cyrus will be first, then Asoka, and finish off with MM...

 

Gnarff,

I have a couple of strategic questions for you here. I understand the difference between a catapult and a trebucet. Basically, the catapult is a better attacker in the open areas, but the trebucet is better when directly attacking a city. They both seem equally effective when it comes to bombardment. However, one thing that I cannot seem to figure out is the Korean UU - the Hwacha. From the description in the book, it doesn't appear to by any different from a catapult. (It looks a lot different on the screen - I'll grant that - but it doesn't appear to possess any increased functionality over the catapult.)

The most worthless UU in the game has to be from the Celts - the Gallic Warrior. It's basically a swordsman with Guerilla I. However, the Celts UB is the Dun (replacing Walls). All cities with a Dun automatically produce units with Guerilla I. So for the Celts, your UU is something you could have got anyway if you just built a wall, which you would do 90% of the time anyway.

Yeah, I'm finding out that Protective is an extremely beneficial trait to have. In my game last night, I found out that when you attack the Koreans early in the game when you have axemen and they have archers, you're a really, really big underdog. My % chance of victory was 5.3%! I've decided that if you play a protective civ, you should never lose a city - ever. By the time your opponent has siege equipment and something better than an axeman, you should be on the verge of getting longbowmen. Churchill must have unbelievable defenses to break when he gets riflemen.

I also like the addition of UB for civilizations as well, although some go a bit too far. The Mongols at this point are almost not fair. Instead of a stable, they get a Ger, which is +4 to mounted units instead of +2. So you can build Keshiks from very early on in the game that have 7 exp right out of the box. Meaning you can take combat I and II, and basically have a unit that attacks at 7.2 and ignores terrain when moving. If your neighbor doesn't have spearmen, there is absolutely nothing he can do to compete with that.

I'm surprised that you like the Egyptian War Chariot so much. I'll freely admit that it's a 5 instead of the standard chariot 4, but for me that's a unit with an extremely limited lifespan. Unless you happen to be fighting an axeman, you're much better off in any other situation with a Horse Archer.

 

First: Hwa'Cha. It gets +50% against5 Melee units. That protects it from Axes and swords, and guarantees that it will face Archers and Mounted units if it attacks a city.

Second: Gallic Warrion and Dun. I don't always build walls. I onlyu do that if I expect early attacks. If I think I'm the one going on teh offensive, I skimp on walls and build more axes. In Vanilla, I seldom built swords either. I'm finding that I use them more now though. Guerrilla I really doesn't cut it for me though, but I could see building Duns in a couple cities so I have Guerrilla I defenders in Hill cities and some stack defenders...

Third: Mongolia. The Ger is an advantage, but not that great early on. Once you get Feudalism and Theocracy, then you get 11 EXP on your Keshiks coming out, and that's nasty, but Keshiks really don't get the job done against Archers on a hill either. After trying the Chinese unificatiion scenario, I've gained a new respect for Flanking I and II. Using Keshiks to soften up enemies and then retreating if they are going to lose builds them up a little and if you have the numbers, then you can knock the defenders down...

Fourth: War Chariots are good for early rushing. If you make your first tech Animal Husbandry, get horses and connect them quick, you have 5 power units before they have their copper hooked up (or even researched in some cases) you can seriously cripple one or more nieghbours...