What are Civ's biggest weaknesses?

This will be hard, considering how much we all love the game. But if it helps, think about it in terms of two questions.

1) What part of the game do you feel like you don't have any choice but to do it "their way"?

2) What was a weakness in Civ 1, or Civ 2, that was resolved by Civ 2 or Civ 3 respectively... (and then extrapolate)

For me, I think I've been hitting a bunch of similar points over and over in my posts, and I want to see if people at least agree about the problems if they can't agree about the solutions.

So, without further ado, here are some of my favorite weaknesses.

THE RACE:

- the game is too much like a race, like a "game of life" board game
- the race is often decided before 0 AD (the first 2 hours of an 18 hour game)
- there are no difficult decisions to make, only "outrun your opponents"
- after 0 AD, if you're a weak nation, there's nothing to play for
- for a race, it's hard to "spin out" or "crash", and huge comebacks are rare
- like a race, it's pretty objective who's winning and who's losing ... there's really only one path to victory

TEDIUM:

- micromanagement sucks,
- micromanagement gets exponentially more tedious (without getting actually harder)
- you spend the last half of the game racing against the end-game clock, instead of your opponents, who are falling behind at this point (even at high difficulties)
- conquering a nation is fun when you take out their first 5, even 10 major cities, and tedious (but easy) when you're going after their outposts and shanty towns

WINNING:

- you CAN prosper without any real allies, rewarding isolationism
- you can't be the best nation in the game without some serious territory
- the early-game settler rush decides too much of the game
- as simple as international conflict is, domestic conflict is practically non-existant
- you need to play like an expansionist to be great (in the gameplay sense, not civ trait sense)
- the space race and UN feels like a "cheap" victory
- the only way they've made the AI more challenging is by handicapping

GAME CONCEPTS:

- economics is completely domestic, and is only marginally affected by international affairs
- economy is largely correlated with geographic size, can't be small but rich
- resources have no concept of limited supply
- there is no incentive to trade
- culture is completely domestic, and is unaffected by international affairs
- democracy IS the best government, even with war weariness
- for a democracy, people still play like dictators, thus negating any of the disadvantages of democracy, or advantages of dictatorship

IMMERSIVENESS:

- civilizations aren't different enough
- all differences are hardwired
- your specialties are hardwired


I imagine this will draw a LOT of criticism to myself. I just want to say, I love Civ and it might be one of my favorite games of all time. But if they addressed even 5 of these bullet points, the game would be way better!

Let's just say that you ought to try a few OCC and even 5CC games before you make such blanket statements about size of empires.

The main area I will agree with you is the micromanagement area.

warpstorm said:

Let's just say that you ought to try a few OCC and even 5CC games before you make such blanket statements about size of empires.

Click to expand...

The only reason for games like that -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are to create challenge where there has otherwise been none or little. I'd like to see a game where there's actually an incentive to play that way, instead of "it's more challenging!"

Or have I misinterpretted the point of OCC/5CC games?

Of course it is to add challenge, the challenge of winning while not growing large. One of your major contentions is that you must be large to win (at least 6 of your bullets).

Then allow me to re-iterate.

Being big improves your chances of winning. The bigger the better. No amount of self imposed small empires will prove otherwise.

- nation greatness is too much corelated with empire size
- the early-game settler rush is too much correlated with victory
- expansionism is too important (in the gameplay sense, not civ trait sense)

And I'll add a new one.

- there is no incentive to stop expanding

Except for, your case, challenge ... or most other people's cases, because they get tired of micromanaging.

dh_epic said:

...
- there is no incentive to stop expanding
...

Click to expand...

Why should there be? The ultimate goal of the game is to win. How do you win, eliminate your opponents. What is the best way to do that - conqueor them.

Or are you referring to expaning through peaceful means?

But back to your first post, I can see how some think that the UN win is a copout, but why space race? Wasn't that the only way to win in the original game?

I'm referring to how there's really only one way to win the game, in spite of the other victory modes... constant expansionism is the only strategy.

I'm not saying that we should take that way. But we need to add to the other victory modes and complicate the domination game so it doesn't just become a straight up race to the finish line.

I'm not sure which is worse... A game that is "who can expand faster, the germans or the romans?" or a game where "will the romans cover most of the world before germany builds the UN?"

Again, this is only my personal opinion and I was curious how many people agreed.

I take it you guys feel there are other flaws in the game?

Bigger is generally better. Why shouldn't it be?

Having more resources is better than not. Why shouldn't it be?

FWIW, I usually go for cultural victories as my preferred victory condition, so most of what you are going on about really doesn't factor into my play style. Big enough is good enough. Trading with the AI and making friends is okay, too.

- civilizations aren't different enough
- all differences are hardwired
- your specialties are hardwired

Click to expand...

Since I know my way round the editor the Civs are what I want them to be.

Do I have complaints? Yes, but I send them directly to Soren, rather than airing them here. I just happen to disagree with most of the things you listed under: The Race, Winning, Game Concepts, and Immersiveness (and I like to argue).

Heh, some of us don't have the luxury of direct contact. Besides I like discussion just as much.

I think it's hard to drive home the nuance of what I'm talking about. Again, I'm not against an expansionist victory. And I admit that it is possible to win without one.

But I think that 90% of the game is expansionism. You fall into a tiny sliver that goes for a cultural style (which is actually my preferred method as well).

I think the game should cut that 90% correlation (e.g.: 90% of people who win are successful because of expansionism, 10% through other means... or 90% of a victory is expansionism, 10% is other factors) and promote other modes of victory, and incorporate other factors into a domination victory so someone cannot be successful by expansionism alone.

I mean, without getting into solutions -- although it looks like this thread has been successfully killed by the "two person thread syndome".

If Civilization is a racing game, then it's pretty much impossible to crash. Which means that if you get a killer lead on the first lap, you will be victorious.

I'm suggesting that the problem is either the racing game essence. Or the fact that it's a very predictable racing game, where no careful driving is necessary once you're in the lead. You can't crash, so no need to be cautious. The game needs to make it possible to crash, for you to be your own worst enemy.

Or the game needs to be more like tic tac toe, someone goes for a victory, his opponent blocks, and inadvertantly sets himself up for a different victory, which is blocked by another opponent, and so forth. Or a card game like "president", or "hearts", where you may have great cards, but the order in which you play them can make or break you.

Let's start over. Do you disagree when I compare Civ to "a racing game decided in the first lap, with little chance of the leader crashing?"

you can't be the best nation in the game without some serious territory

Click to expand...

Says who? I am usually the smallest but the most influential.

the space race and UN feels like a "cheap" victory

Click to expand...

Not when you make a comeback from 1.5 eras behind to capture the UN...

economics is completely domestic, and is only marginally affected by international affairs

Click to expand...

Have you heard of selling techs?

economy is largely correlated with geographic size, can't be small but rich

Click to expand...

What about the fabled "super science city?"

there is no incentive to trade

Click to expand...

Yes there is! Trading is essential to keeping up in the tech race!

democracy IS the best government, even with war weariness

Click to expand...

No it's not.

for a democracy, people still play like dictators, thus negating any of the disadvantages of democracy, or advantages of dictatorship

Click to expand...

Can't we just give peace a chance?

dh_epic said:

The only reason for games like that -- correct me if I'm wrong -- are to create challenge where there has otherwise been none or little. I'd like to see a game where there's actually an incentive to play that way, instead of "it's more challenging!"

Or have I misinterpretted the point of OCC/5CC games?

Click to expand...

While I do agree with many of your points, the most attractive trait of CIV is you can play "variant games". The game does feel boring if you always play the same way, but you can try many different things and get new excitement all the time. I've been playing for one year and I am not bored!

All other games I've played got me bored pretty much after playing one or two rounds. No exceptions except CIV.

So yes, AI is stupid, MM is boring, later game is tedious, but it's a flexible game that you can redesign yourself.

I'm referring to how there's really only one way to win the game

Click to expand...

No, there are many many ways to win. You just lack the imagination.

dh_epic... I echo your sentiments here. The Ai forces you to expand to the point of tedium. If you dont claim territory, the AI will settle on it. I find myself following the same basic gameplan in most of my games. Expand like a madman until all the prime real estate is gobbled up, and then go into my build mode.... developing infrastructure and my army... and then attack my closest neighbour.....

The entire game map should NOT be settled before 10 AD. There should still be vast wilderness areas even into the modern age. These territories could be claimed by a nation, but not necessarily settled.

I read some of the responses here about playing variants and challenges to spice it up a little bit. I would argue that the desire of so many to develop and play these variant games is the smoking gun that validates dh_epic's points here.

In real life, most of the world had people in it in 10 AD...

Sorry, Barker, there is a check on expansion. The AI will not build more than twice its OCN and slows down its expansion to a crawl when it gets to its OCN. I've played games where most of the world was unsettled. Try a huge game with only 4 opponents. About half the world will be open. The AI won't even settle in prime spots. It'll just send out colonies.

REPLAY VALUE:

One of civ's weaknesses in my eyes is that once you've played for a while each game ends up being very much alike; especially the way you start the game--you usually start the game with the same strategy. The rest of the game is less this way in that it depends on who your enemies are and what theyre strengths are.

But idea on how to solve this is by making the development of the civilizations more dependent on geography and the resources and landscape that they grow up with, in that they develop more closely based on these factors. I mention some of my ideas the several threads I put up, most important to this issue are http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91553 and http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=91552

Although there are just some ways to victory, one cannot neglect the fact that there is a "camino royal" - and this is the expansion path. *If* you do the expansion successfully, you are going to win. That's a fact.
This in no way means that you are going to loose necessarily, if you don't have the chance to expand, or if you volunteeringly decide to miss it.

But, the game is much concentrated on pure growth, and this is one of the main things to be changed in the next version.
Currently, it is still very one-dimensional and that is what most people don't like.
As it has been pointed out over and over again, the first two ages are the most devisive ones - if you performed well at the beginning, there is almost no chance of loosing in the later games. If you made the wrong decision (or just had some bad luck) in the beginning, there is almost no chance of a come back.
Sure, a really good player with the full understanding of the game can make it even in this case, but for the majority of players, it's just the Ancient and the Medievel Age. I would assume that quite some 75% of games are ended at the beginning of the Industrial Age - either because the player feels to be too much backwards, or too much in front.
This I would call the intra-game balance, and it should be improved. Period.

Epic I agree 100%. Great list of weaknesses and so true, the only one I disagree with is that there is little incentive to trade I think there is. There is almost no motivation to build an infrastructure. If faced with build improvements or expand the way to victory is always expansion, this needs to change I won't even buy civ 4 if they do not fix the problem that territory is everything. Spaceship and UN do seem cheap ways to victory and the game has basically turned into settle all the land first. If you look at real life this is ridiculous. Who has more territory Germany or Russia? Who a better economy Germany or Russia? Who is more technologically advanced Germany or Russia? In real life the answer is obviously Russia, Germany and Germany but in civ the answer would be Russia, Russia and Russia. Russia would be researching future techs while Germany would just be emerging from the industrial ages....if Russia wouldn't have conquered the world already that is. The economic system is my biggest problem it is based almost only on nation size, likely if they fix this problem they will fix many others with it such as the settler rush and that the game is decided by the year 0. Anyway like I said I will not buy Civilization IV if they ruin it by not fixing these things.

Any game that starts you out with one settler and expects you to expand and be the dominant civilization as the victory condition will by defintion be subject to how well you expand.

I predict Civ4 will not change this. Civ wouldn't be Civ if you start with much more than one small city. It's kinda the point of the game.

warpstorm said:

Any game that starts you out with one settler and expects you to expand and be the dominant civilization as the victory condition will by defintion be subject to how well you expand.

I predict Civ4 will not change this. Civ wouldn't be Civ if you start with much more than one small city. It's kinda the point of the game.

Click to expand...

I agree about the fact that expansion is vital for a Civ game. No doubt about it.

But (and this is a big 'but'), the way in which this is set up feels so one-dimensional. Build settler, found city, build settler, found city .... Basically, this is a strategy which will work every time. If you do so and have at least an average terrain to settle in, you almost can't do anything wrong.
The introduction of the cultural influence was a first attempt to limit this, but it has proven to be too less. More limiting factors - or better, factors which counter the pure expansion strategy - are needed.
There is so much room for inventing micro-events which would add more depth to the game, but in Civ3 we are missing them. Let's hope, that this will be significantly be changed in the next version....

Well, let's see. Aggressive barbs that can actually conquer or destroy your cities would slow this down. You'd need to at least put in some defense into the mix. Having the AI occassionally spending on a risky early war might make this expand at all costs strategy no longer viable. Who knows, religion and culture could probably be factored in somehow.

dh_epic, I totally agree that Civ 3 is too orientated around constant expansionism - anyone that claims otherwise is only kidding themselves.
The concept of 'bigger is better' is very unrealistic and it detracts from gameplay.
There are many changes that I would like to see in Civ 4 (I don't just want a re-hash of Civ 3 - I want a new game that has been adventurous in introducing a vast multitude of changes) - but I think that rebalancing in this area is absolutely key to improving the game. I do not want to see another version that is a foregone conclusion by the middle ages. Civ 3 is good but Civ 4 could be vastly better if the developers do away with the concept of big is better.