Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
That change is the best change in the game! Warfare is so boring in Civ 4 because there's no gameplay to it, if you have a stack that counters their stack you win. I am sympathetic to the argument that doom stacks were better because the AI was more competent with them, but can't really understand preferring them as a game mechanic.
If you want more complex combat, maybe consider Shadow Empire? It's a deep dive and some stuff is just opaque logistics-autism but there is fun to be had with encirclements, reconnaissance-in-force, spoiling attacks, preparatory artillery barrages before the armoured thrust...
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn't do the combat system in Civ IV justice. Unit types have inherent bonuses and penalties against other units or in specific situations, and can further specialize by taking promotions. An longbowman that is a sitting duck in the field becomes a killing machine with placed behind city walls with the garrison promotions. There is no best unit; every unit has a counter. And huge stacks can get demolished by collateral damage, so you have to make careful decisions about how to split your stacks, whether to attack and if so with what units, whether to take an extra turn lowering a city's defenses but risk more defenders showing up, etc.
And that's all just tactics. Strategy is just as important. You need to decide whether to invade an enemy or defend, how many units to send in an invading stack vs how many units to leave home, which types of units to build, whether to spread out your defenders to cover all of your cities or concentrate them at the most likely point of conflict or concentrate them on your most important cities, and so on. Geography is also surprisingly relevant; the second easiest way to win a war in Civ IV is to defend against an intercontinental assault, because amphibious invasions are hard. You have to decide when and where to land, whether it is better to disembark close to an enemy city or in a more defensible square or to attack directly from the boats despite the penalty, etc.
But most important of all is economy and technology. By far the easiest way to win a war in Civ IV is to be one tech level ahead of your opponent. When two equally advanced opponents duke it out, the one with the higher production tends to win, because they can replace their losses while the other can't, and there is only so much tactics and strategy can do to tilt the kill ratio.
It's an impressively complicated system that the AI can handle almost as well as a human. Civ IV is truly one of the greatest games of all time.
Alright, you've convinced me to give Civ 4 warfare another shot. I'm not exaggerating my experience - I really do remember combat being completely boring and without any nuance in that game - but it was my first Civ so it's certainly possible I overlooked depth to be found in it. Are there any good guides for Civ 4 tactics? I know the game has strategic depth, but something which helps to reveal any tactical depth would be welcome.
Sulla's website chronicles a very interesting episode in which he and another player called Speaker found themselves invaded by five civilizations at the same time, from multiple directions. Speaker masterminded an absolutely brilliant defense and managed to save their team, then counterattacked and ended the war by crippling one of the aggressors. You can see how important tactical details were in deciding the outcome; Jowy had enough materiel and bodies to defend in theory, but he positioned them poorly and lost the battle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link