Why is this game still so good?

^^This and actually that would explain everything about civ series development where civ4 is real exception. I mean - old civs (well, talk about 2/3) where at time when CD games ruled the world. Civ5-6+ are made on world where online gaming, Steam (Trains ) etc. direct market (just drag Demand and Supply lines and develop what market demands). So this window.. this window was just perfect place for right development team to do something for history you know..

civfanchambers said:

Simple answer --- This game was crafted by a development team that wanted to satisfy the hardcore Civilization fans, not make a fast buck.

Click to expand...

I think Jon Shafer at least did care about civ, but brought with him an axe to grind against stack warfare and ICS based on deeply a flawed understanding of both 'problems'. To make matters worse, and its clear that the devs did not even understand their own mechanics, having absolutely no clue as to what the changes would mean.....

The depth of these misunderstandings being made apparent shortly after release, where 3 horseman 'armies' were conquering continents on Immortal and Deity, ICS re-emerged as the dominant city building strategy, the rise of the carpet of doom, the combat AI being simply broken and the strategic elements of warfare were gutted (well 'gutted' is an understatement).
Sadly, many of the problems caused by changing to 1UPT, such as breaking the AI and removing strategic depth, had been predicted years in advance, on these forums and others.

I never got the absolute hatred of SODs. They may not be perfect, but they're not anywhere near the biggest flaw with Civ IV. And I sort of like Civ IV's solution to ICS--heavy economic penalty that can be overcome with technology. But getting that tech gives the other players/AIs a chance to expand.

Another reason why many of us keep playing Civ IV after 10 years is because of the great mods.

If I get bored of the basic game, I can play RevDCM or Realism Invictus, or something similar. And if I want a really big change I go to Rhyes and Fall or Fall From Heaven 2. I think I spent a whole year playing only RF and FFH2, they are just great.

I just installed Endless Legends today, hoping it will be as good as FFH2, but I doubt it will be.

Another reason why many of us keep playing Civ IV after 10 years is because of the great mods.

Click to expand...

No!!! Lol. The game is still awesome due to it's strategical depth, mechanics, and overall game balance! Anygame that provides that is good in my books! I'd be more than happy playing with leaders called Leader 1, Leader 2, Leader 3, so on and so forth. Hell, Keeblar Elves that breathe fire and destroy Tanks would be fine as long as depth, strategy, and balance were maintained.

Maybe I'm a weirdo ^^. I hate playing with Mods. The final game passes or fails, period. Besides, playing mostly HoF Mods are disallowed. I don't consider Bat/Bull/Bug/BlueMarble etc a Mod. They simply give you all the information you're already entitled to in a quick and easy format.

And just to throw out there, I don't play Civ IV due to it's realistic, Historic, or immersive gameplay either. You could have all those elements in a game but the game could "play" as the worst game ever produced. So yeah, those are all meaningless and have zero impact on how enjoyable a game actually is.

Civ IV its by far and away one of the most intricate building games ever made. Throw all the game aspects together and you could play the same map over 1000 times and have 1000 different outcomes. How cool is that?!

The answer is in the depth and frequency of meaningful (measurably outcome-determinant) decisions you make.

Civ V openers are not entirely canned, but they are closer to it than in IV. IV presents enough situations with enough incomplete information such that you can't consistently win with a pure cookie cutter approach, even if there are some things you generally want to accomplish.

Fast national college is almost always a good idea in V for example, even across social policy choices (though tradition is overly strong/consistent). What's the IV equivalent? There is none. An early academy is useful but your tech order might take you to something else entirely first. There are maps where researching aesthetics to trade it is a great value, but if you do that every time you'll wind up making terrible investments on occasion. Rifling or cuirassers are alpha-strats, except you can make extremely efficient headway in medieval or classical on occasion or be better served attacking later and reading these things requires nuance.

Civ IV's UI is bad, but it's the best in the series. It matters, because it means less time between useful decisions.

V does some things better. Its early game RNG dependence is better-designed, and religions require more thought. It lacks some of the trashy events like some of them in IV and has a better (if still annoying) implementation of barbarians. Diplo victory and transition to late-game post ideology are better.

But it's not enough, because on a per-turn and per-playtime basis, IV has more decisions to make that impact the outcome, and fewer of them are trivially solved by simple heuristics to memorize.

I think IV and V are good and bad in their own way. I like the graphics and ranged combat of V, but I hate the barbarians and social policies. Conversely, I loved the civics and all the in-depth advisor screens of IV, but I hated how easy it was to lose a city and how slow most land units were. I can only hope that VI takes more from IV than V, but I doubt it

The ease of modulation is what is giving Civ 4 longevity for me. I've got no computer science training and it seems I don't need any. I've been able to add so much extra enjoyment to the game I can't foresee if I'll ever stop playing.

That and Great Generals. I have a real problem with collecting Great Generals... I'm addicted to the +2 XP.