Civ 4 - Huge Disappointment

Anybody else thought so? I understand that must of you who hang out here play the game, so you must have liked it enough to play it, but there must be things about the game that annoy you?

Ive heard from more than a few fans that they dont like the new game (on the Off Topic section of this forum), now I know what they meant.

And I had such high hopes for this game...
I think the combat system is a joke, also there are too many choices for troops (never thought id say that) and way too many choices for city buildings and wonders.

why too many is a bad thing, well for one it might scare off someone who is new to the game, having to read about all those diffrent buildings and then figuring out which one is the best for this particular city, isnt exactly fun.

1 thing I did like about the game was the promotion thing.

PS. I have no interest in having a flame war with people who like this game, If you like Civ 4, then great, thats your opinion.

I think the variety in units and buildings leads to the potential to specialize, which adds character to the game.

Also, what did you think about it forcing you to choose which National Wonders to combine? I thought this added another dimension of thought and planning. Add to that the fact that specialists are (unlike Civ III) actually useful this time, cities have much more potential to be specialized. You've posted almost 5000 times... you know what you're talking about. What did you think of these additions?

One thing I didn't like was the lack of a throne room/palace to build... I mean that would take all of a week for one person to put together... what gives there? Also, I was a little disappointed at the recurring lack of "flavour units" a la Rise and Rule, but I guess that would have driven costs up.

Yes, there are people who think that Civ4 was a disappointment, although the vast majority doesn't think that way. Still, that doesn't invalidate your own, personal disappointment.

I'm a bit surprised by the reasons you gave though. They are ...

1. "combat system is a joke". Not much I can say about that as you don't give any reason why you think so.

2. "too many choices for troops". That's honestly the first time that I ever heard that complaint. Actually, those people that were disappointed often named a *lack* of troop choices as a reason. For example, some people miss paratroopers or alpines from Civ2. So your complaint actually runs contrary not only to the opinion of the people who like the game, but even more so to the opinion of many people who were disappointed. Which is a bit strange. But to each his own, I guess.

3. "too many choices for buildings and wonders" - again, I never heard that complaint before. For me, the game would feel bland if I had to do the same building routine in every city.

To me, it seems that you just got overwhelmed by Cv4's feature richness. I suggest to keep playing, the better you learn the game (which may take a while), the more you can appreciate the many possibilities instead of feeling overwhelmed. That is, unless your opinion is already so fixed that you'd only focus on bad points in further playing, in that case it'd probably be best to just let the game rest a while and try it again later.

Another possibility might be to look for a "Civ light" mod, but I doubt that something like this exists ... there hasn't been much need for it, or interest in such an endeavour, at least not to my knowledge.

Honestly those are some strange complaints, all the things you've listed I view as strong points of the game or things we need more of. Civ does a great job trying to make the game "new user" friendly, if you find the diversity too overwhelming, use the governers, automate your workers and build what they recommend. It won't get you by on noble and above most likely, but on lower difficulty levels you can just cruise along and focus on whatever you feel is more fun for you, leaving the complexity for later when you feel ready to play around with it.

From what you've said though I'm not certain your problem is so much with Civ as it is with the genre itself, in which case I'd suggest playing something else entirely. I'm not a big fan of sports games, but I'd never complain about them because I know the reason I don't like them is because... they're sports games, no fixing that.

Jawz II said:

And I had such high hopes for this game...
I think the combat system is a joke, also there are too many choices for troops (never thought id say that) and way too many choices for city buildings and wonders.

This is not true compared to other Civ games, which pretty much had an equal number or more. If anything, Civ is short on different kinds of troops. If there were only 1 or 2 types, then the game would get boring fast, and wouldn't be competitive.

why too many is a bad thing, well for one it might scare off someone who is new to the game, having to read about all those diffrent buildings and then figuring out which one is the best for this particular city, isnt exactly fun.

If you are the type who hates the boring building stuff, then have you tried world buildering all of the buildings in before playing. That way, they're already there, and you can concentrate on conquering everybody else.
1 thing I did like about the game was the promotion thing.

Civ IV is all about learning every last detail that could give you an advantage to out tech and whoop your enemy. Buildings give the feel of needing to walk before you can crawl. Basically, without an infrastructure, your civ is doomed.

PS. I have no interest in having a flame war with people who like this game, If you like Civ 4, then great, thats your opinion.

Click to expand...

Most people here will be civil. It is my opinion, however, that Civ IV is probably not the game for you. It requires a certain playing style that turns many people off, while many others love it. It's a love-hate sort of thing. I'm sorry to hear that you were dissappointed, but did you perhaps try to settle into the game more? If that doesn't work, then you will know that it's time to play something else.

Jawz II said:

PS. I have no interest in having a flame war with people who like this game, If you like Civ 4, then great, thats your opinion.

Click to expand...

So, what then is the point behind your posting?

The city specialization is a huge learning curve for me. I am still trying to get the hang of creating a cottage powerhouse, hammer production center and great person farm. Choosing the city site followed by the World and National wonders to place in each. Then which buildings to prioritize to maximize efficiency and output.

I agree that the new choices from CIV are daunting but nothing that cant be over come with trial and error.

i like this game i see where your coming from.but i think warlords was more of dissapointment then civ4.ive never played any other civ

Combat system really is a joke. It's the 21st century now and Civ IV still uses that archaic system from Civ I.

Why is the rest of the game really intricate and complicated, but the combat system is simple and abstract? Are the developers afraid of changing it? Are they anti-war and would rather focus on intricate civics? Do they think the AI wouldn't be able to handle an intricate combat system?

It can't be because players don't want the game to get complicated. Civ is already one of the most complicated games there is. It can't be because it will scare away new players. In fact I think it will draw more players if the combat system was intricate. I think potential players are scared away because combat is too simple, yet the rest of the game is complicated. Look at the huge fan base the Total War series has!

War has shaped history like no other event has. Yet in Civ IV it's STILL an afterthought. By now the developers could have developed a nice intricate combat system that would let us use real strategy and tactics, to coincide with our strategies in city planning and civics.

City planning and civilization-management is intricate and keeps getting more intricate (and better). And it works beautifully. Why can't they develop a combat system that's just as intricate? It's like they're moving forward and yet purposely staying behind. It's like they want to deny the importance of war in human history and make players focus on history's civics and management. I personally think they can accomplish both an intricate civ management system and an intricate combat sytem , and it would make for the single greatest game ever made. I just hope they aren't afraid to "break the mold" started by Civ I and create an all-new mold. It's 2007; it's time for the Civ series to reach it's full potential.

I'd say definitely sift through some mods before you give up on the game, if nothing else, this game outshines any of the previous civ games by far in its moddability. Heck, they even gave us the ability to rewrite the game engine itself as we see fit.

Fall from Heaven II completely revitalized the game in my opinion. Of course, if you play because you're a history buff and like that aspect of Civ, it's not for you. But FfH adds magic, increasing the complexity of the combat system (I assume the loss of a separate offense/defense number is what you consider a joke), has an awesome selection of units that is not overwhelming in that you only have to chose between two choices at almost any given upgrade oportunity, and while it has plenty of buildings to satisfy the builders out there, they don't suffer from the "replacement building every age" syndrome that civ4 seems to have in many lines.

However, in response to your original complaints about "vanilla civ":

1. combat system - yes, the new combat system is simpler, but promotions allow for far more customization than the old static combat system did.

2. troop and building choices - civ 4, more than any of the previous games in the series, is about strategy. In the same way that chess is more strategic than checkers, civ 4 is more strategic than its predecessors. This would be impossible without a wider variety of units and buildings to cause more strategic decision points throughout the game. This causes higher level gamers to have to be even more focused from the beginning in how they plan to win the game, with many options for adaptation if a given game requires it. However, the game also allows more automization than any of the previous games, meaning that on lower levels you can automate those choices and play more with the parts you enjoy.

These are really odd complaints. I'm going to have to agree with most people's responses and opine that perhaps this type of game isn't your cup of tea.

drkodos said:

So, what then is the point behind your posting?

Click to expand...

its fairly straight forward, read my original post. Im asking others if theyre as disappointed with the game as I am. and if not, is there anything about the game they dont like.

well, I have been playing civilization since my little brother showed me civilization (the first game) cant remember exactly when, probably in the mid 90s, it was a few years before the second one came out.

I spent all night tonight playing civ 2, which i think still is the best game in the series, and civ 3 is a close second.

I think there was nothing wrong with the combat system at all, and totally abandoning the old system for this new game of Rock, Paper, Scissors that is the current system was a big misstake. also I liked the civ3 artillery system alot.

there was nothing wrong with the old system, so why fix it if its not broken?

and yeah I would learn all the new stuff, the many many new city and terrain improvements, all the new wonders etc if I played the game more than 2 days but I dont see myself getting over the new combat system.

but its still not a good idea to make any game to complicated, I shouldnt have to study for hours to play a game good.

I am very dissapointed of promoting system. In fact it is simply the same as it was in Civ3, cause you rarely select other promotion than Combat. The only interesting promotion is Comando. City Raider, City Garisson and Medic are useful, but the whole thing could be better resolved.

P.S. Have I ever mentioned that Drill is just crab. Combat I gives better results than Drill 1 + Drill2. The last ones are efficient only when units are wounded, but these are rare cases
And please remove Woodsman ... it is only valuable for scouts

Isn't the advantage to drill that if you do win, you are more likely to be uninjured, like less chance of winning overall but better chance of winning unscathed (meaning perhaps a better chance of winning two combats in a row).

Don't flame with statistics, but this may be the rationale behind Drill, and they work very nicely on the defence when terrain bonuses are involved.

Giaur said:

I am very dissapointed of promoting system. In fact it is simply the same as it was in Civ3, cause you rarely select other promotion than Combat. The only interesting promotion is Comando. City Raider, City Garisson and Medic are useful, but the whole thing could be better resolved.

P.S. Have I ever mentioned that Drill is just crab. Combat I gives better results than Drill 1 + Drill2. The last ones are efficient only when units are wounded, but these are rare cases
And please remove Woodsman ... it is only valuable for scouts

Click to expand...

Well, you may rarely pick things other than Combat, but I've gotten use out of things like Shock, Cover, March, Blitz, Amphibious, Drill, Accuracy (or whatever the +10% city bombard is), Woodsman, and the hill defense one as well. Yeah, Combat's going to help more all the time, but that specialized 25-50% bonus is going to help you when you can use that bonus, and then it's 15-40% better than straight Combat. And I find it highly doubtful that either you or I speak for everyone, but I bet there will be people chiming in to say that they use specialized upgrades as well.

I admit I've never selected the 25% bonus against siege weapons -- wait, no, I have, because unless my brain stopped working that works against Machine Guns. Does it work against Machine Guns? I haven't played to the Modern Age in my current game, and I only play about twice a week with a friend.

Jawz II said:

I spent all night tonight playing civ 2, which i think still is the best game in the series, and civ 3 is a close second.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how you can combine a) favouring Civ2 over the other games and b) claiming that Civ4 has too many units to choose from. Don't you see a contradiction there? Where are the Alpines, AEGIS, Cruise Missiles, Crusaders, Dragoons, Fanatics, Partisans, Paratroopers, Diplomats, or Caravans in Civ4? I honestly don't see your point.

Jawz II said:

I think there was nothing wrong with the combat system at all, and totally abandoning the old system for this new game of Rock, Paper, Scissors that is the current system was a big misstake. also I liked the civ3 artillery system alot.

Click to expand...

Personally, I disliked the Civ3 artillery system a lot. It made the game too easy. There was little challenge left once you figured out how to use artillery efficiently. Of course, if you liked it that way, then Civ4 artillery won't be your cup of tea.

Jawz II said:

there was nothing wrong with the old system, so why fix it if its not broken?

Click to expand...

If that was the modus operandi of Firaxis / Sid Meier, then Civ2 (the game that you prefer) wouldn't ever have been designed the way it was- There ws nothing wrong with the top-down display of Civ1, why change it? There was nothing wrong with the way wonders were announced, why change it into playing movies? There was nothing wrong with attacks from sea being difficult, why introduce marines?

Personally, I'm glad that Firaxis tries to improve even those aspects of the game that are *not* broken.

Jawz II said:

and yeah I would learn all the new stuff, the many many new city and terrain improvements, all the new wonders etc if I played the game more than 2 days but I dont see myself getting over the new combat system.

Click to expand...

Let me put it this way ... if 2 days of playing were enough for you to determine that you can never enjoy this game, then it's probably better to just sell it and return to the games you know.

I think you've fallen into the "It's not the same as the game I love" trap and aren't able to climb out. In this situation, it might actually be better to just give up and return to the games you know. Or perhaps shelf it for the time being and return when you're a bit more open-minded with regards to changes.

Jawz II said:

but its still not a good idea to make any game to complicated, I shouldnt have to study for hours to play a game good.

Click to expand...

Well, so I guess games like chess and Go shouldn't have been made then? Actually, the same is true for Civ1. The amount of new things to learn in Civ1 was *far* greater than for any other game of the seires, provided you already knew Civ1. Civ1 required a *lot* of time to get it right. It just had a really lousy AI, so that players could play the game without understanding it well, and still beat the higher difficulty levels. If Firaxis followed your supposed standards, then Civ1 should have never been made.

Btw, on which difficulty level did you play Civ4?

Personally, I appreciate the complexity of Civ4. I've played this game for months now and there are still things that I have never done, and still strategies that I have yet to learn (specialist exonomy for example). This is what keeps the game fresh. I wouldn't *want* it dumbed down to a level of simplicity that I can grasp the whole game on the first two days. Such a game would become boring pretty fast. Civ4 hasn't become boring for me yet, because of its complexity.

But as I said, complexity isn't everyone's cup of tea. It doesn't seem to be yours, so you're probably actually better off playing other games.

Giaur said:

P.S. Have I ever mentioned that Drill is just crab. Combat I gives better results than Drill 1 + Drill2. The last ones are efficient only when units are wounded, but these are rare cases
And please remove Woodsman ... it is only valuable for scouts

Click to expand...

Drill is extremely powerful when you're in the tech lead. It will allow you to win battle after battle without having to pause to heal your units. If you're the military tech leader and want to blitzkrieg a neighbor or two, nothing beats Drill IV. As with many of Civ4's options, the key is to know when to use it.

"Combat" is actually the weakest promotion, it's the one i choose when I don't have a clear concept of my further strategy yet. Once I know what I want to do, other promotions are always more effective.

I agree with you that woodsman is weak. I wouldn't remove it, but I'd like to have it tweaked to make it more useful.

I found woodsman to be a one out of a stack of ten kind of promotin... in case your stack gets attacked while in the woods! In that case, you are going to absorb 2-4 of anything with one musketman. If he survives, he'll be even more lethal (although woodsman II is probably overkill... my medics sometimes pick this one up).

Giaur said:

I am very dissapointed of promoting system. In fact it is simply the same as it was in Civ3, cause you rarely select other promotion than Combat. The only interesting promotion is Comando. City Raider, City Garisson and Medic are useful, but the whole thing could be better resolved.

Click to expand...

As with many things about this game, once you learn how to use something, you stop seeing them as "useless." While some promotions are more specialized than others, I can't think of a single promotion that I haven't found useful from time to time.

Giaur said:

P.S. Have I ever mentioned that Drill is just crab. Combat I gives better results than Drill 1 + Drill2. The last ones are efficient only when units are wounded, but these are rare cases.

Click to expand...

Drill promotions work best when you have an advantage over your enemy, such as when you have a tech lead over your opponent, or if they're wounded. They allow your unit to attack without being attacked in turn, which means you take less damage... which in turn means that you need to heal less often... which in turn means you can press the attack faster.

A City Raider III, Drill IV trebuchet is a truly beautiful thing to watch...

Giaur said:

And please remove Woodsman ... it is only valuable for scouts

Click to expand...

Two Woodsmen II archers and a medic warrior once kept Louis from overrunning my empire while I was paying through the nose to Elizabeth for iron to upgrade a few warriors, and desperately researching construction to take the war to him. They reached level 7 (Getting Guerrilla II and Drill II in the process) in Louis' attempts to dislodge them from the wooded hill right beside his southern most city, which was just inside my cultural borders. (My western-most city was in a culture war with that city over the only horse resource nearby, and I'd been winning.)

Woodsman and Guerrilla may not be useful all the time, but they do shine when they can be used. If I had gone with Combat promotions, then they probably would've died when Louis' assault was at it's fiercest. +20% is nowhere near as strong as +50%, and +40% isn't as good as +100%, after all.

Shock, Cover, Formation, Pinch are useful but work very similar to Combat.

Example: Pinch vs Gun,Gun,Archery,Melee,Mounted,Gun.

... it's only improved Combat

Example 2: Pikeman (C 2 + Formation) vs Knight (Combat 2)
I don't know the exact formula, but you can check it manually.
Pikeman attacking knight is not the same as knight attacking pikeman. In the second case Formation gives similar effect to Combat. This odd thing was observed in Civ4 Vanilla with 1.61 I think.

Flanking (especially improved in expansion) are useful and very interesting, but these units work similar to siege weapons ... they weaken the defenders. Furthermore when I see the stack of units (my units) f.e. (cavalry):

F 2, F 2, C 1 + Pinch, F 2, F 2, C 1 + Pinch

then I see only 4 units, cause any F 2 unit is for me half an ordinary unit, cause the whole stack inflicts less damage.

My general point is that there are to few interesting promotions (like comando).

For example I would add promotion that allows you to choose the defending unit from enemy stack. I figured this out in 5 minutes, so I really don't understand why the creators are so lazy.

P.S. Medic is useless. It only spoils valuable units. Let's simply increase the healing effect on the whole map.