true
Civilization Revolution*
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
true
But you can't turn all hammers into gold or test-tubes. Let's say you research a tech that gives all cities +1 production. Now you'll always have a build object because you can't turn that production into something else. Then when you get lots of population, they are creating Production Resource that again, you ahve to spend on something. It won't let you ignore those rotten little hammers!
As for getting the 'Master of the World' Achievement, my suggestion is play as the Arabs. They start with Fundamentalism that gives +1 attacks, making early units formidable. You could also see about researching the 5 easiest techs as soon as possible which grants Mathematics and thus Catapults as a civilization bonus. You'd also want to explore the map from the beginning to plan your attack, learning where the other nations are. Ideally you'd want the rival nations close by so you're not wasting time trekking everywhere,
well I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it all (and I'm a noob) but if you choose "custom" can you not assign each worker group to only test tube resources? I thought you could. If not, then i understand. do i understand correctly though that you are talking about assigning more resources to research to speed up technological advances?
No. In Custom, you choose which regions around your city to use. Any population not placed in a field next to the city will work in the city. Every person in the city generates one hammer. For each six people, you generate an extra either Test-tube or Gold depending on which you've selected. That is -
Populace 1-6 = 1 hammer each
Populace 7-12 = 1, hammer, one extra (gold or text-tube)
Populace 13-18 = 1, hammer, two extra (gold or text-tube)
Populace 19-24 = 1, hammer, three extra (gold or text-tube)
So a population of 14 people generates 14 hammers and 6x1 extra resource, and 2x2 extra resource.
Populace 1-6 = 1 hammer each
Populace 7-12 = 1, hammer, one extra (gold or text-tube)
Populace 13-18 = 1, hammer, two extra (gold or text-tube)
Populace 19-24 = 1, hammer, three extra (gold or text-tube)
So a population of 14 people generates 14 hammers and 6x1 extra resource, and 2x2 extra resource.
If you happened to select something for production (or game does for you time to time), since there is no unselect then trade or food strategy doesn't automatically ignore production resources and even if you do custom, the next population increase automatically selects production resources (as you said).
I think however if you managed to not select anything (as after non-combative unit or any building production completion), things may work as expected. And I would think those inescapable production resources like bonuses (or simply too much population) wouldn't be wasted even if you don't build anything immediately. I haven't tested that though.
As for victory before 1000 I have no idea, but curious. My best time is probably with Aztec (autoheal + science temples) around 1300 AD (domination victory) on Deity.
The problem is once other civilizations have archers you need either knights or catapult. Catapult defense is crappy generally requires to carry an archer army and Feudalism takes a lot of time.
I noticed that I generally would like to have great builder first among the famous people. There are generally Wonders that increase science/gold or culture more than great "traders". Even better there is East India Company which gives you same increase for all cities (for some time).
A great leader is also very useful for domination strategy.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you mean Hammers not spent get saved and applied to the next project, yes, that's true. I had a city where I never assigned a construction project turn upon turn, and then when I assigned it a newly available Wonder, it was built immediately. Thus the manufacturing resources were clearly being stockpiled. The problem is still that you have to go to the city every turn an press the exit button - you can't just leave it and not be pestered. Wheras in contrast, if you set a unit to Defend, you are never taken back to it unless you explicitly target it, whcih results in goes being missed. eg. I've had a stack of units outside an enemy territory as a unit heals with the defenders dug-in. I've then moved the healed unit out, been automatically taken to other units, and I've forgotten to go back and move the defenders from their dug-in position to protecting the attacking unit. For this reason I use a lot of saves, to cover up mistakes in control!
That's why starting as Arabs makes sense. You get Feudalism from Day one and catapults shortly afterwards.
Great Leaders are great, allowing powerfully trained armies, but I find I end up placing them in the most inconvenient places! Ideally they'd be in the city with the most production to churn out trained units, but if you get them too early they end up in a less productive city. I always kidnap the Great Leaders when I see them. Look for the flag with a Star!
You get Fundamentalism from day one, not Feudalism?
I only need him before attacking someone, so I don't generally settle him until I'm comfortable with the city. But if you produce a lot of gold, it doesn't matter much.
Yeah, me too.
Though I haven't tested that selling culture tech to other civs may make sense (as long as they keep their famous people).
As for production, good to know production is saved even without a selection, but I was also speculating about trade or food strategies ignoring production resources (which they don't do normally if you have something selected) under population increase.
And having to go through all the cities is annoying. I'd say that's also annoying when you are defending with offensive units where you have to go through them and attack if the enemy is close buy. They could have something like defend the city option that leads to a local attack when enemy is close, since you always know attacking enemies' strength.
If the AI is anything like any of the other Civ games (from 1994 or whatever) you should sell tech at times. The other AI nations will trade technology they eventually develop between themselves anyway, so if you know your rival is reaching this and that tech, make sure to sell it to everybody that will pay right before he gets it. That way, he cannot capitalize on selling the technology, while you can sometimes earn alot of money.
I won a Domination victory last night when time expired as I had a huge Cultural and gold lead and was 1st in tech.
i traded, sold, bought a lot of tech and while at first I felt i might lose to the Arabs in tech, the trading paid off and I even got an achievement. something along the lines of "sharing is a good strategy" (not that at all but something along those lines.)
Corrent, fundamentalism is +1 attack tho, feudalism just gives access to knights.
Winning by 1000AD isn't all that hard, you just really need to rush and get fast units, remember you only need to take capital cities. Obviously a bad map will render it near impossible, but if you can get a start with everyone on the same continent it's not too bad. Starting with arabs or zulu (fast warriors) would help quite a bit.
The only achievement that should take me any time now is finding all of the great persons. I'm missing 2 or 3 after about 20 games.
I disagree, Zulu is one of the worst civs after the initial Barbarian stage because only warriors have mobility and warrior is the most useless thing once someone discovers Bronze and pretty much everyone does quickly. Even legion or horsemen are useless after that point. And they only need three turns to make a defensive army.
Have you finished the game with Zulu (before 1000 AD)?
Also I don't think +1 of Fundemantalism is useful without Catapult or Knights. Arabs have quicker access to Catapult so this is an advantage. But catapults have bad defense and low mobility. It's not easy to mobilize and you need to carry defensive units along. Plus even with +1 an elite Catapult is no match for Greeks (Pikeman) with a Palace, or archers with a wall (that can be fixable by researching masonry first I suppose). Still I think Arabs are pretty good candidate for the task.
I played the demo today since I gave the game to a buddy. Demo is only Warlord but has no save and I don't think difficulty matters that much in the game, at least the way I play it. On Deity others use resources very smart, but not smart enough, plus it's generally easy to steal settlers or famous people, and you get to learn other techs by just capturing cities.
Anyway I finished the game by 1125 AD (thanks to Egyptian Colossus), I'm sure it can be done easily now (even on Deity).
Greeks were still painful even under Fundamentalism, infiltration, and decent naval support though.
Yes. (on king difficulty) You can sometimes get a zulu warrior to an enemy capital before they can defend with anything better than an another warrior. I took out two quickly and then built up a big knight army with feudalism.
You only have to beat 4 enemy races, so you're not always going to run into a dug in greek hoplite army. The nice thing with zulu is that if enemies do start near you, you can kill them before they get the chance to build up. The 2 speed scouting of the zulu allow you to get a nice quick start, finding the gold and maybe a settler or horseman or something else. A settler can be quite useful allowing you to strategically link your cities. Roads can help quite a bit.
Difficulty matters quite a bit in how fast they will develop technology and what they will do with their forces. It also affects your start by quite a bit as you start with a warrior instead of having to build one.
Well Thanks Shifty and AlphaWolf for the tips, I already try with arabians (Germans are also interested with new unities are veterans) and Zulus and all time I got two others civilizations who are far away the sea so need Navigation, so I have not the management for this in time.
Hope I got some luck the next time!
Hope I got some luck the next time!
Yeah two is doable, but I was talking about 4 on a hard difficulty.
When you start with good trade resources, you can do the same with other civs as well, using horsemen completely skipping warrior (which I do often).
And feudalism still takes time which was the point.
If the other civs start near you I'd think both Aztec and Arabs have better chance of taking them out efficiently.
Settlers for road building is only useful if you have some decent fast defensive unit to accompany them. But getting settlers early in the game, even with republic is painful. I generally go for 100 gold and steal other's settlers.
You don't start with the warrior in the demo at least for Warlord.
And higher difficulty has a lot of advantages like tech, great person, settler stealing. When you conquer a city, it's generally efficiently populated and there tend to be many cities to conquer. If you use democracy, it's easy to keep them fighting instead of asking for truce (which I hate since you have to accept it too, in addition to not being able to declare war, unlike AI democracy civs, they can simply ask for stuff in return. I like Indians for their anarchy immunity).
I'd say as long as they are not close to you tech wise, it doesn't really matter how developed they are in terms of conquering capitals.
Sorry, typo.
I was trying this on King, and it seemed to me the civilizations were more spread out. When I play on Deity the enemy tend to be much closer, competing for resources straight away. You may want to try one of the harder levels just in case.Well Thanks Shifty and AlphaWolf for the tips, I already try with arabians (Germans are also interested with new unities are veterans) and Zulus and all time I got two others civilizations who are far away the sea so need Navigation, so I have not the management for this in time.
Hope I got some luck the next time!
Difficulty matter alot in Civ games. On warlord, your pretty much guaranteed a fair chance of winning
I think winning is guaranteed on any difficulty, and I haven't seen any unfairness on the side of AI besides diplomacy interactions.
Last Civ I played was the second one and it was what, 15 years ago, I don't remember much but I do remember you had to keep citizens happy (or keep an army) otherwise they simply revolted.
Was that the case in recent PC Civs?
edit: Apparently it has only been 11 years not 15.
