Civilization VI

That’s quite late in the game. For earlier conquest, use bombard units. They will take down medieval and renaissance walls. Positioning them to fire on the city is a pain as they usually cannot move and fire in the same turn. Try to get the Expert Crew promotion which allows for this ability. Use a Great General to give your bombards one extra movement point. They can fire in the same turn if they have 2 movement points left.

Later on, once balloons become available, build them right away. It extends the range of siege units by one which allows you to take out cities without exposing the siege unit to defensive fire from the city.

Going from out of range to into range with as many units as possible is necessary as well. Ideally, you need to get in there with melee units to soak damage, and then get 2-3 siege units into position as quickly as possible to get thee walls down. Hitting a sitting right after it gets a flood is nice, too.

Once you get the balloons, you can safely bombard from 3 tiles away and out of range of city attacks.

Another key is to siege the city by having unit zone of control entirely around the city. Melee units will cover the tiles next to them so two can siege a city, unless there’s a river blocking the zone. If it’s a coastal city, you’ll need a boat to cover the adjacent sea hexes. This will block the natural healing of a city, and it’ll greatly speed things up if you’re trying to take an early city with archers and warriors.

Early game you can try lots of melee units. Surrounding with 3 prevents city from healing. Then you can bombard a bit, take the city down with 3 melee hits.

It’s notl like the old game (?) when you could just shoot everyone with arrows/crossbows and march a single warrior in to take it.

But I found there is a window of opportunity to do this, the easiest way is to do it from the start of the game and take down an enemy capital. Afterwards conquest slows down and if you take too many ai down there’s nothing to slow barbarians down anyway.

This is not my experience. It seems to me that a handful of cities usually carries a civ. Extras maybe for specific purposes, like access to resources or loyalty support for key cities. If I get to 12, it is usually because I needed to grab oil, uranium, aluminum, etc. later on.

This for sure.

I’ve dumped a fair few more hours into my Switch copy, and picked up both of the expansions. Beyond those first three crashes, it’s been smooth sailing in terms of performance.

I think playing this game on PC would put me in a very different mindset and be terribly disappointing, but it works fantastically as a handheld game.

I see the physical version is constantly on sale for about $19 CDN which is quite good. Unfortunately the cost of the DLC keeps me from picking it up.i think it went on sale a couple of weeks ago but it was still far more than the cost of the original game.

Tom, Tom, Tom. Civ 4 forever.

Okay @SorenJohnson that was great. :)

I think I need to fire them both back up. Other than religion I don’t really remember at this point the major differences beyond 2d -> 3d.

I can see an argument for any other (even VI), but who has III as a favorite? Is Nichols savvy enough to know he’s trolling here?

From the sounds of it he didn’t have a problem with 4, it just didn’t have the long term 1 more turn feeling for him.

Tom Nichols doesn’t recognize the genius of Civ IV? What kind of filthy casual praises III as the pinnacle of the series? He’s dead to me now.


Yeah, it looks as though he has an off by one error. Which means it’s probably best if we keep him away from the nuclear codes just in case of integer underflow.

Yeah, reading through his response, it seems like it was the one he spent the most time with so that’s why he has the most fondness for it. It reads like he didn’t really have the time to learn IV when it came out, so that’s why he never took to it. Which, fair enough.

Mourn for me, oh forum, for 'twas civ 5 that was my first ever civ.

Is there a version of 4 that works on a Mac with Catalina or later?

I still have a soft spot for 3 and I see it as the culmination of the first two games. If I go back and play it it’s for nostalgia, I hate ICS too much to play a hard game of it. The graphics on 4 are just tough for me to look past now even though it’s my favorite in the series.

Civ 3 had some great ideas, but 4 really refined it all.

These days I’m inclined to think that Through The Ages is a far superior design than Civ though.

I don’t remember why anymore, but I thought III was mostly a letdown after Civ II. It is probably my least favorite version.

Oh no doubt. I’d pay $50 for a Civ 4 remastered.

As a competitive game telling the story of a civilization from ancient to modern times this is absolutely true. But as a single player experience, it doesn’t scratch all of the 4x itches.

Even more than most computer strategy games, the Civ design has massive scalability issues. The beauty of board games is that they boil down the essential ingredients to give you varied strategies and experiences within a very limited complexity budget. TTA stretches those complexity budgets to the limits of what is possible in a non-computerized game, but still abstracts over the things that simply don’t scale well, like army, city and map management. It’s not a coincidence that a game such as Old World, where the original Civ IV designer attempts to improve on the Civ concept, ditches the ‘all of history’ aspect and borrows ideas from TTA.

I would like to try to create a TTA-version of Civ some day: a game with a map, but one where TTA’s abstractions help deal with the scalability (and frankly realism) issues.