I've just downloaded the Civ IV demo and I've been loving it! Everything seems to be working fine on my laptop, however it is just the demo (small maps). I am very picky when things slow down, in fact I can't stand it. I would much rather get Civ III Complete if I knew Civ IV would experience considerable slow downs in the latter gameplay. Here's what I have. You be the judge:

Processor: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83 GHz with Centrino Mobile Techonology
Memory: 1 GB DDR II SDRAM
Hard Drive: 60 GB, 5400 rpm
Graphics Processor: ATI Mobility Radeon X1300

Any feedback would be appreciated. I've been trying to draw a conclusion based on the previous posts but it really comes down to if it will be able to handle the large maps with lots of civilizations. Thanx.

large maps will be a problem. But I have a lot of fun on standard maps.

I have exactly the same setup, but 2G RAM. I have no problems with slowdown, even on Huge maps.

I wish I could do it. I can't wait till I get a new computer that can run the games that came out last year. :). I'd like to try Oblivion again as well. Though I lost interest in that game because of gameplay.

Maybe EQ2. Though I hate the gameplay of mmorpgs.

To be truthful, I only want a new computer to play civ4 :D. So many of the world maps are huge. I wish there were more standard sized world maps (for warlords)

I can't tell how the performance would be for you, but my personal opinion is that civ 4 has much much better gameplay than 3. Not everyone would agree, but the fact i already played more civ4 than ever civ3 is enough for me.

I can't tell how the performance would be for you, but my personal opinion is that civ 4 has much much better gameplay than 3. Not everyone would agree, but the fact i already played more civ4 than ever civ3 is enough for me.

Exactly. ;) I personally like Civ3 much more than Civ4, and to the surprise of some members here, I have arguments too. ;) But let's not turn this into another Civ3 vs. Civ4 flame fest. Search for the other threads with this title, and you'll see how these threads get to 10 pages long and full of flames/trolls. ;)

Seems fine, I only wonder whether your VRAM is shared? Your processing capabilities will handle large maps, IMO, so get Civ4 and have fun!

BTW, did you know you can change the map used for the tutorial? I did that when I got bored with the tutorial map and was waiting for Civ4 to be delivered. You can download a map, and replace the tutorial file with it. I think I also had to edit it to be compatible with the 4 civs in the demo though....but it isn't too hard. Then you can get an idea of how huge maps perform.

Should be fine. That's almost exactly my setup. I don't mind the speed with the largest setting with the most players (it's a little slower than a smaller map but nothing like my older computer would have done). I heard that turning off swaying trees helps free up computer resources on the larger maps but I've never tried it.

My $0.02,
SR

The tree tip above is good. Also reloading a save after every ten turns or so is a great idea. Keep in mind Civ3 is done and CIv4 is not. You should play Civ3 till CIv4 gets ironed out. Civ3 originally was slow in between turns, the new Xpack may improve some aspects of laggyness in CIv4's core

I will be blunt and very truthfull. Your processer barly meets required specs. Your memory is not enough to play huge maps with many civs. Large maps are not really that large and the huge map isn't ether but its what your looking for and will become massivly slow after the many countrys have expanded in middle era.
You stress map size and I stress you will have major probs with your prefs.
I can show you people wtih 2 G of memory who say there game is to slow. (but google it yourself is best)

THe misconception of CIv3 being long on massive maps came from players using old computers. THe ones who reverted back to CIv3 using their CIv4 proofed set ups to play "huge" epics were shocked at the change in turn times. (it seems Civ4 wasn't the only chapter to under estimate its optimal spec )

T Keep in mind Civ3 is done and CIv4 is not. You should play Civ3 till CIv4 gets ironed out.


Huh, Civ 4 works fine on most modern computer. It's not finished in as there will be another x-pac and probably an patch but that's it.


I will be blunt and very truthfull. Your processer barly meets required specs. Your memory is not enough to play huge maps with many civs.


One GB workes fine for me. The processor is fine. How do you figure that it barely meets requirements? Do you just look at the MHz? That's nonsense, you know.

I will be blunt and very truthfull. Your processer barly meets required specs. Your memory is not enough to play huge maps with many civs. Large maps are not really that large and the huge map isn't ether but its what your looking for and will become massivly slow after the many countrys have expanded in middle era.
You stress map size and I stress you will have major probs with your prefs.
I can show you people wtih 2 G of memory who say there game is to slow. (but google it yourself is best)

I don't see why the processor is rubbish?! It is a newer model than mine, and being dual core won't decrease performance (on the contrary...). 1Gb of RAM is certainly enough. I have 1Gb (and 128Mb is used for shared graphics) and I can run Civ4. Standard maps are great (I don't play any larger yet) on my system. I might agree that huge maps will be slow though...content yourself with standard and large, but maybe try my tip above to see for yourself.

I don't see why the processor is rubbish?! It is a newer model than mine, and being dual core won't decrease performance (on the contrary...).


Wow I didn't notice the dual core. Sorry Reignmaker.
Duel core adds nothing much to Civ4 really. It helps with having lots of progams running but Im pritty sure the game is programmed so the core dynamics don't utilize any benifits from the multi-task enhancements. Memory the same, I pull better turns from a single 3.2 processor then I do with dual 2.0 processors.

Whats the point of misleading. Truly Id still buy it when Civ4 complete comes out if the Xpak resolves these issues with huge maps. Im saying Why not get whats complete today and runs better for what he wants?. Its not like the op can't buy CIv4 much cheaper when its packaged complete by the time hes played through some great Civ3 epics.

Civ4 is more for a 200 turn arcade stlye game or muliplayer or standard size GOTM challenge. It excells no question to CIv3 in all these ways.
Its also no secret Civ3 plays maps that hold over 500 cities and that can be divided between 31 civs with under a minute turn times. Even 256x256 and up in CIv3 you were waiting mybe 2 min tops...I mean tops on todays PC!!

It comes down to two types of slowness. Waiting in Civ3 was similar to thinking strategy while waiting for a chess opponent to fully consider n complete all his moves. Compare this to Civ4 and its painfully worse, like waiting for your hand to stop shaking every time you go to make a grab at a single chess peice.
Yes, its a bugger but most computers playing on huge maps with many civs after a few hundred turns will run into this and its a core design flaw that can be read about very readily here.

We shouldn't holler about a few special cases when its not are money at stake here. Lets think about the odds he actaully comes through squeeky clean trying to cram 20 civs on that tiny "huge map" Will it truly satisfy this area that he's most interested in the same way Civ3 does?
Thats all Im saying here boys. I see he's read all the other issues surronding both games and hes well informed to make the right decison given he's got the straight facts concerning the troubles wth this particular engine. All in all, It was a nessesary experiment and adjusting mechanism for operating better in the 3d realm. Things will improve, but as of the moment, no way Civ4 served real "empire size" can be called a safe bet with those specs .

World maps resembling true empire proportions using many opponets are awesome fun! but, also a time commitment that many CIv4 players don't like to deal with. It all depends what type of player your are. The whole limits thing on Civ4's world sizes is very real and the OP's specs don't exclude him from it. Im sorry OP Im trying to keep it real here, please google this problem to see and try to decide for yourself (it will avoid another lenghy "research" paper :) )

I heard that turning off swaying trees helps free up computer resources on the larger maps but I've never tried it.

My $0.02,
SR

how do you do this?

how do you do this?
First Congrats on a great X pak.
on topic: I guess this means you can't? thanx you saved me the time of reinstalling.

I had heard the trees were the biggest factor for huge map woes and was kinda exicted to try this option. Im guessing now he means turn the graphics to its lowest setting and that dosn't go very go far to hold my sprefferd sized epics (cuz trees the biggest anaimation, are excluded from being shut off)

As you prefer larger maps, I also would recommend CivIII Complete for now. You could probably run Standard Civ4 maps fine, and maybe large, but not huge. Also note that Civ4 Standard is smaller than CivIII Standard, and the same goes for all other maps sizes. I have lower specs than yours in memory and graphics, but can run a Huge Earth map with 16 civs at a bearable speed in Civ III. When I try that in Civ4, it is so slow by the early 1700s that I just give up. You'd make it further than that, but it would still become agonizingly slow.

Wow I didn't notice the dual core. Sorry Reignmaker.
Duel core adds nothing much to Civ4 really. It helps with having lots of progams running but Im pritty sure the game is programmed so the core dynamics don't utilize any benifits from the multi-task enhancements. Memory the same, I pull better turns from a single 3.2 processor then I do with dual 2.0 processors.

Whats the point of misleading. Truly Id still buy it when Civ4 complete comes out if the Xpak resolves these issues with huge maps. Im saying Why not get whats complete today and runs better for what he wants?. Its not like the op can't buy CIv4 much cheaper when its packaged complete by the time hes played through some great Civ3 epics.

Civ4 is more for a 200 turn arcade stlye game or muliplayer or standard size GOTM challenge. It excells no question to CIv3 in all these ways.
Its also no secret Civ3 plays maps that hold over 500 cities and that can be divided between 31 civs with under a minute turn times. Even 256x256 and up in CIv3 you were waiting mybe 2 min tops...I mean tops on todays PC!!

It comes down to two types of slowness. Waiting in Civ3 was similar to thinking strategy while waiting for a chess opponent to fully consider n complete all his moves. Compare this to Civ4 and its painfully worse, like waiting for your hand to stop shaking every time you go to make a grab at a single chess peice.
Yes, its a bugger but most computers playing on huge maps with many civs after a few hundred turns will run into this and its a core design flaw that can be read about very readily here.

We shouldn't holler about a few special cases when its not are money at stake here. Lets think about the odds he actaully comes through squeeky clean trying to cram 20 civs on that tiny "huge map" Will it truly satisfy this area that he's most interested in the same way Civ3 does?
Thats all Im saying here boys. I see he's read all the other issues surronding both games and hes well informed to make the right decison given he's got the straight facts concerning the troubles wth this particular engine. All in all, It was a nessesary experiment and adjusting mechanism for operating better in the 3d realm. Things will improve, but as of the moment, no way Civ4 served real "empire size" can be called a safe bet with those specs .

World maps resembling true empire proportions using many opponets are awesome fun! but, also a time commitment that many CIv4 players don't like to deal with. It all depends what type of player your are. The whole limits thing on Civ4's world sizes is very real and the OP's specs don't exclude him from it. Im sorry OP Im trying to keep it real here, please google this problem to see and try to decide for yourself (it will avoid another lenghy "research" paper :) )

:lol: except the game mechanics would prevent this style of expansion. Civ IV doesnt support 500 cities on a game mechanics scale. Furthermore the fact is Civ IV on Marathon is 1200 turns. 1200.

thats real son.

I had heard the trees were the biggest factor for huge map woes and was kinda exicted to try this option. Im guessing now he means turn the graphics to its lowest setting and that dosn't go very go far to hold my sprefferd sized epics (cuz trees the biggest anaimation, are excluded from being shut off)
It's more like Trees makes the most demands on your GPU which isn't very demanding these days. You can buy a Geforce 7600 for a little over $100 which can run pretty much any game on the market on high settings ( that is at 1024X764 resolution. Of course if you got a high dollar monitor you don't want to buy a cheap Graphic card). So if you got a descent GPU the graphic settings makes little/no difference on performance.
To me it seems the cities (as each are unique with their buildings displayed) makes the most demands in huge maps.

Memory the same, I pull better turns from a single 3.2 processor then I do with dual 2.0 processors.


Depends heavily on the processor. My Core 2 Duo runs at 2.4 GHZ (E6600) and easily outperforms (core for core) the 3.6 GHZ Pentium D 960.

The T2400 is an EXCELLENT notebook processor and will outperform an Athlon 64 3800 and the D 960.

Ammar right. You can't go by processor speed anymore.
If I go to www.srtest.com can test any game I find this statement under CPU speed ;
"You Have: 2.40 GHz Performance Rated at 6.90 GHz"

:lol: except the game mechanics would prevent this style of expansion. Civ IV doesnt support 500 cities on a game mechanics scale. Furthermore the fact is Civ IV on Marathon is 1200 turns. 1200.

thats real son.

And you laugh like its a good thing! ? ;) I said 500 citys divided by 31 civs on the same map deley free. I guess you like empires the size of ten cities? Civ3 is built for the long run. In civ4, The graphics engine makes sure you can't go large and the mechanics are built around these limitations.

EDIT: ADD.
About the processor, ya Im not the best judge I admit. especially with unlisted extras another sytem may have to up its advantage. Im going by what Ive seen so far. I stand by what I said on the early Dual core. Nothing stood out but mybe the chance of watching a movie on the net while waiting for deley in game that still exists.

thats 16 cities per civ, which is still a lot for civ iv games. furthermore when you start conquering you will take a huge amount and still not make a dent towards certain victory conditions. With 50 cities your empire would be suffering from a lot of problems and thats only 10% of cities. It is a game mechanics issue.

So essentially you are again saying CIV IV should be Civ III.
:deadhorse:


What do you mean by arcade junkie? Ive only played TBS since 2000. I hardly think of TBS as arcade games.

anyway, it's nice to see youve gone to the level of personal attacks on my intelligence. :goodjob:

No, civ4 mechanics where based around smaller numbers of cities: that was an express design goal, to not have city-spam being the be-all end-all optimal strategy for once.

Second, the OP just wants to know if Civ4 will generate slowdowns:
I have a lower-grade AMD chip, the same amount of memory, and an x600 graphics card on my laptop. Civ4(Warlords) plays pretty fine even on huge maps in the late game.

Your system is strictly better than mine, so I suspect you won't have a problem.

So essentially you are again saying CIV IV should be Civ III.
:deadhorse:


Intresting choice in smily. Are you stalking me? ;) Anyway whatever boys, your grasping the strawman again ;) . I stick with what I said. In this case the Buyer should beware

OP please post your results if you buy it. thx

No, civ4 mechanics where based around smaller numbers of cities: that was an express design goal, to not have city-spam being the be-all end-all optimal strategy for once.


quote for truth.
Civ3 mechanics are broken

Intresting choice in smily. Are you stalking me? ;) Anyway whatever boys, your grasping the strawman again ;) . I stick with what I said. In this case the Buyer should beware

OP please post your results if you buy it. thx

so youre admitting that youre creating strawmen and debating in bad faith?

so youre admitting that youre creating strawmen and debating in bad faith?

When was this a debate? You follow me around lookin for one but I wasn't going there this time. Why? he's read all the debate on all the others aspects and wants to know one thing, What plays larger maps better?, or, Does Civ4 play them well at all? So you say Im setting up the strawman? Im going out of the way to stay on point. Your the one avoiding the issue man . You have to set up a strawman to "grasp at it" right? Why are you so confused? Its clear looking back whos avoiding the straight facts. lol


Wow I didn't notice the dual core. Sorry Reignmaker.
Duel core adds nothing much to Civ4 really. It helps with having lots of progams running but Im pritty sure the game is programmed so the core dynamics don't utilize any benifits from the multi-task enhancements. Memory the same, I pull better turns from a single 3.2 processor then I do with dual 2.0 processors.

Whats the point of misleading. Truly Id still buy it when Civ4 complete comes out if the Xpak resolves these issues with huge maps. Im saying Why not get whats complete today and runs better for what he wants?. Its not like the op can't buy CIv4 much cheaper when its packaged complete by the time hes played through some great Civ3 epics.

Civ4 is more for a 200 turn arcade stlye game or muliplayer or standard size GOTM challenge. It excells no question to CIv3 in all these ways.
Its also no secret Civ3 plays maps that hold over 500 cities and that can be divided between 31 civs with under a minute turn times. Even 256x256 and up in CIv3 you were waiting mybe 2 min tops...I mean tops on todays PC!!

It comes down to two types of slowness. Waiting in Civ3 was similar to thinking strategy while waiting for a chess opponent to fully consider n complete all his moves. Compare this to Civ4 and its painfully worse, like waiting for your hand to stop shaking every time you go to make a grab at a single chess peice.
Yes, its a bugger but most computers playing on huge maps with many civs after a few hundred turns will run into this and its a core design flaw that can be read about very readily here.

We shouldn't holler about a few special cases when its not are money at stake here. Lets think about the odds he actaully comes through squeeky clean trying to cram 20 civs on that tiny "huge map" Will it truly satisfy this area that he's most interested in the same way Civ3 does?
Thats all Im saying here boys. I see he's read all the other issues surronding both games and hes well informed to make the right decison given he's got the straight facts concerning the troubles wth this particular engine. All in all, It was a nessesary experiment and adjusting mechanism for operating better in the 3d realm. Things will improve, but as of the moment, no way Civ4 served real "empire size" can be called a safe bet with those specs .

World maps resembling true empire proportions using many opponets are awesome fun! but, also a time commitment that many CIv4 players don't like to deal with. It all depends what type of player your are. The whole limits thing on Civ4's world sizes is very real and the OP's specs don't exclude him from it. Im sorry OP Im trying to keep it real here, please google this problem to see and try to decide for yourself (it will avoid another lenghy "research" paper
Heres what you grasp at .................
except the game mechanics would prevent this style of expansion. Civ IV doesnt support 500 cities on a game mechanics scale. Furthermore the fact is Civ IV on Marathon is 1200 turns. 1200.

thats real son.
Son whats that got to do with the issue? or, should I say your line "your off the message again":goodjob:

When was this a debate? your itchin for one again but I wasn't going there, Why? he's reads debate on all the others aspects and wants to know one thing, What plays larger maps better?, or, Does Civ4 play them well at all? So you say Im setting up the strawman? Im going out of the way to stay on point. Your the one avoiding the issue man . You have to set up a strawman to "grasp at it" right? Why are you so confused? Its clear looking back whos avoiding the straight facts. lol

you brought up the point that he wont be able to play with 500 cities with 31 civs etc etc. You said it was because of the graphics. I raised the point that it was because it would fundamentally screw with the game mechanics in Civ IV and its not a desirable gameplay situation. How is that wrong? Where is the strawman in that?

The criteria for large games is a different concept from Civ III to Civ IV.

finally I don't know who you are appealing to in audience but Im pretty sure that no one respects your opinion when it comes to Civ IV by people who play Civ IV. So no matter how clear it may be, no one cares but you.

You be the judge:

Processor: Intel Core Duo T2400 1.83 GHz with Centrino Mobile Techonology
Memory: 1 GB DDR II SDRAM
Hard Drive: 60 GB, 5400 rpm
Graphics Processor: ATI Mobility Radeon X1300

Dell Inspiron?

I have almost identical stats, only my DuoCore Proc is 2.0, and my ATI is the x1400... that said, Civ4 runs smooth -- no problems (that's Civ4 + Warlords). Obviously later game play on larger maps can take a bit between turns, but there's no graphical animation lag.