So i finally got this iteration of the game and after a few goes, i suck at it.

I played the first 2 versions of the game a hell of a lot and used to win 3 out of 4 on the Prince setting (i didn't fare well higher than that), but in Civ 4, it was all i could do to squeek one win in Warlord in 3 attempts, and my 2 attempts at Noble have come to a quick sticky end. Have they made the difficulty settings harder or something or have i lost my mojo after a 10 year break from the game?

I haven't played in about a year but the game takes some serious getting used to compared to the older versions.

Civ 4 is very good, but be sure to get the expansions.

What do they bring, Jong?

I managed my first Lengendary city - christ knows how you're supposed to get 3 of them.

Quote from: One Horse Town;318006What do they bring, Jong?

I managed my first Lengendary city - christ knows how you're supposed to get 3 of them.

Info Centers for Beyond the Sword and Warlords.

Had a fun game last night, even if i came stone dead last. I think i've found the type of civ i like playing - it's the ones with leaders that give you bonuses to developing Great People. I never tire of seeing great artists in their Elvis get-up in later time periods. It was nice to have a war with the leading nation and come out ahead (well in captured cities, anyhow - they still kicked my arse on the overall scoring).

Bloody Ghandi.

Civ IV is the first in the series to come close to Civ II, one of the greatest games of all time.

As others have said, I recommend the expansions, especially if you are trying for a cultural victory, Beyond the Sword is invaluable.

Warlord also adds a ton of cool stuff to the game that make warmongering more fun, like Great Generals (a great person generated in a different way- by fighting).

Basically, each expansion offers new wonders and civilizations and units, in general within a set theme.

Warlords is all for kicking ass, Beyond the Sword is for the peaceniks.

Civ IV is indeed excellent and both of the expansions are worthwhile. The expansions also add more playable civilizations/ leaders.

(There are two kinds of Civ players: those who love Civ II and Civ IV, and those who for whatever freakish reason think Civ III is the best.)

The best general advice for succeeding in Civ IV is to run over somebody as soon as you can. I don't mean always open with a warrior rush, but as soon as you have an advantage over one of your neighbors, put an army together and take their cities.

From there, you can be just about as peaceful or warlike as you want.

You can win and be totally peaceful, but it's harder & more situational.

Cultural victories: what you want are cathedrals from at least 3 different religions in each of your to-be-legendary cities. Wonders also help.

Quote from: Imp;319041(There are two kinds of Civ players: those who love Civ II and Civ IV, and those who for whatever freakish reason think Civ III is the best.)

Honestly, I thought Civ III had a lot going for it, but a few things ruined it for me. Mostly it was the wonky implementation of strategic resources.

You'd have like 2 sources of oil in the entire world, and one of them would run out in the 1600's.

Civ IV got it right.

But hell, what I'd *really* like to see from Sid Meier is a new Alpha Centauri, so that tells you the kind of guy I am.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;319118But hell, what I'd *really* like to see from Sid Meier is a new Alpha Centauri, so that tells you the kind of guy I am.

Well, anybody who's played Alpha Centauri is that type of guy so it doesn't really narrow things down that much.

Seriously, it's one of the best overall concepts for a computer game I've ever run across. The seven leader-archetypes are almost all really compelling (well, Pravin Lal is a bit of a dip, but he's stuck in the straight-guy role) and the game does a great job of showing you the inhuman aspects of the sympathetic leaders and the positive facets of the horrifying ones. I'm not sure I can say enough good things about that game.

Civ III's strategic resources, treatment of culture, and army mechanic were all really frustrating I thought, and while I'm used to it now, the splicing of SMAC's fixed-leader mechanic into Civilization annoyed me a lot at the time.

CivIII was fun for a while until all the cracks already mentioned above started to show.  CivIV is easily a far superior game straight out of the box, even if you just consider all the fixes to culture, wonders and resources.  

Quote from: JCrichton;319370CivIII was fun for a while until all the cracks already mentioned above started to show.  CivIV is easily a far superior game straight out of the box, even if you just consider all the fixes to culture, wonders and resources.  

And don't forget Leonard Nimoy.

Civ IV has infinity more Leonard Nimoy that Civ III did.

Quote from: One Horse Town;317466So i finally got this iteration of the game and after a few goes, i suck at it.

I played the first 2 versions of the game a hell of a lot and used to win 3 out of 4 on the Prince setting (i didn't fare well higher than that), but in Civ 4, it was all i could do to squeek one win in Warlord in 3 attempts, and my 2 attempts at Noble have come to a quick sticky end. Have they made the difficulty settings harder or something or have i lost my mojo after a 10 year break from the game?

Noble is the "fair" setting; neither computers nor human players are handicapped/advantaged.  The AI is better and the game play is different.  You should be able to win on Noble reliably once you get used to it, but I'm not sure exactly what you're doing or not doing that needs to change.  I had a bad habit of trying to skimp on units while building up my cities, and you can't get away with that too far; an AI will walk in.  If you can grab a tech lead that helps a lot.  Don't be afraid to spend great people to discover new techs (in the middle of the tech tree, not really cheap ones).*  And don't be afraid to trade a tech away for another one, especially if you get a chance to trade one thing to more than one different civilization.

*Edit:  Provided that makes you the first to get them.  I'm particularly fond of great person-rushing Theology from a great prophet, and I'll generally use a great merchant for Currency or Metalcasting.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;319118But hell, what I'd *really* like to see from Sid Meier is a new Alpha Centauri, so that tells you the kind of guy I am.

Yes.  A modern Alpha Centauri would kick ass.  Or a Civ IV engine Alpha Centauri.

I gather the problem is that the rights are tied up.  Electronic Arts still holds the rights to Alpha Centauri as publisher; despite Firaxis having done the development, they apparently didn't sign the best contract.  Further, Brian Reynolds really did more work on Centauri than Meier; Meier's name is on the title partly due to his guidance, but partly due to his (deserved) fame and selling power and the fact it was a clear extension of the civ concept.

So its a standoff.  EA could theoretically develop an Alpha Centauri sequel now, but it wouldn't be Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and they wouldn't have Reynolds' labor, and they must know it wouldn't go far.  Meier could bring out "Sid Meier's Space Game" or something now, but he can't use the Alpha Centauri name and history unless EA sells their rights, which apparently they won't.  Reynolds is no longer with Firaxis so he's out, which can happen when you take a contract as the hired help, but its still a shame.  I'd be as happy to play Brian Reynolds' Alpha Centauri II as I would Sid Meier's.

*snaps fingers*

You know what the problem might be.

If you're coming to Civ IV from Civ II, and you're getting your ass kicked at low difficulty levels... you might not be building cottages. You might just be building farms.

Don't do that. Build cottages. Build lots of cottages. More cottages than farms. Cottages = economy = very important!