A million things that bug me about civ 4

[Sebiche]

1. Its a great game, but key flaws make it get old and VERY anoying.

2. The way combat is decided by odds rather than by skill. If I wanted to play a dice game i'd get risk.

3. Ever get the feeling its too "child appropriate"? it need more dynamic diplomacy like assasination, betrayl.

4. The way everything is run by cities. in real life, an espionage mission could destroy a missile silo. not here

5. Lack of tactics. wheres the glory in rolling die?

6. three words: VERY GENERALIZED UNITS. you get SWORDSMAN from 350 bc to 800 ad.

7. The religion? like communism, GOOD IDEA, BAD APPLICATION. all religion does in the game is ignite religious wars.

8. the civics are AMAZINGLY screwed up. AMAZINGLY.

9. combat bonuses. what good is it that only defending units get bonuses.

10. I would like to command an ARMY in a STRATEGIC position. not three guys and a chance percentage.

11. techs should be developed more than 1 at a time.

12. it needs a future!! this is civ: you've discovered robotics, build this unit! you've discovered future tech!... and it ends.

13. doesnt the box say "IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGIES"? where did that go??

14. again with the box: there are no biplanes, no sphynxes, no space needle, no washington memorial, no empire state, no tower of piza, no golden gate bridge. get the feeling we've been deceived?

15. its WAAAAAAAAY to templaty. you have SO many civs at the begining. NO MORE shall appear. IF YOU DESTROY ONE it can never return or nothing. EVER. (REVOLUTIONS!!! WHAT EVER HAPPEND TO REVOLUTIONS AND NEW NATIONS APPEARING?? THE U.S!!)

16. SPACE AGE AND BEYOND?? where did the space age go?? where did space go as a matter a fact??

17. Dawn of man? 4000 bc?? alot of stuff happend before 4000bc. the uniting of upper and lower egypt for instance.

18. Leaders should come and go. your people should rebel and overthrow you if unhappy. unlike the game.

19. There are very little ways to make trade routes. methinks it should have 1 per population point.

20. ever played medieval II total war? that is a good idea of strategic, tactical and somewhat diplomatic. now if it only went through the time scope civ does.

21. ever get the feeling that the unique units have nothing to do with their real counterparts.

22. ARMED REBELLION. TERRORISM. GUERRILA WARFARE. WHERE DID YOU GUYS GO?

23. units should be build on tiles that could be OTHER than a city.

24. lets stop kidding ourselfs. the forts need to be fixed.

25. maps are too small for my taste.

26. needs more detailed ancient and classical periods. its hard to wage a classical war and impossible to wage an ancient one.

27. WE DID NOT USE HALF-NAKED GUYS WITH CLUBS IN 4000 BC. WE HAD BRONZE BY THEN.

28. some units you cant even use. they become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

29. WALLS!! we need walls!! and im not talking about city walls. great wall of china, hadrians wall, those wall types.

30. leaders should act more like leaders of their age. sneaky and mean in the modern era, honorable yet aggressive in the classical and peace-hating in the medieval.

31. we want more civs! let them be more detailed and stuff.

32. the combat command!! (i know im repeating myself mind you) its so annoying!!!

33. implement new units!! customizing your armies with technology and resources!!!

34. it needs to be less macromanaging. half of the fun is being there with all the heat and action, rather than doing nothing

35. promotions?? one should be able to design units, give them abilities and as they get better give them promotions. not the other way around.

36. as units go advancing they go losing some cool abilities. not cool.

37. more specific actions, entrench, snipe, barracade, shield wall, spear wall, that kind of stuff to make one a real warlord.

38. better seige weapons. doesnt it show a seige tower at the begining? where did it go??

39. morale. its important. its huge. its missing.

40. less things to criticize about.

41. more dilemas: do i join a war that could destroy the earth, or risk getting ripped to shreads?

42. pollution and health issues. how come global warming only appears with ICBMs?

43. disasters!! disease, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanos, etc

44. more human things such as crime, education, strife.

45. law restrinctions. the civic may be called "representation", but i see no other power than yourself, and you still get commands like a autoritarian despot.

46. more detailed civics. like having 3 powers system and stuff like that.

47. actually getting to create you civilization. not just copy another and change the names.

48. what if WE ( the player ) appeared on the map, represented by a unit? like with all the other ones. we could lift moral and commerce, and stuff like that.

49. The millitary!! it needs work!!! it just needs to stop being so very equal to everyone elses. like a tech investment thing for military, the higher the investment, the stronger the troops.

50. fix that tech tree. we had calendars back in ancient greece. and speaking of ancient greece, MORE UNITS PER ERA!! I WILL NOT USE PHALANX FROM THE TIME I DISCOVER BRONZE UNTIL THE TIME I DISCOVER ENGINEERING. IT JUST DIDNT HAPPEN THAT WAY.

51. more dynamic living things. oil deposits eventually runout, mines, fish die, and the same way that forests grow in the game, let oceans flood.

52. artificial land creation. it exists.

53. the UN needs fixing. badly

54. custom treaty organizations. like the UN, NATO, etc. the player could make them and their cause.

55. heresy and more violent religion and civil aggression.

56. it should be harder and more challenging to found a new city. an ancient government would collapse with a new city.

57. take off the thing were culture is destroyed when a city is captured. look at the pyramids, they've been conquered 5-6 times and they are still as influencial as ever.

58. ARMAGEDON!! it needs an "end of the world". nuclear war, pollution something, but it just needs to be possible!

59. why does the game end at 2050? does that mean the world will end at 2050? so there is no future for us? well that sucks (if you did not get it, it means add a future and move the end year up. we want future units, technologies and buildings. we want them. we know were you live.

60. there have been other nuclear weapons other than ICBMs. like the bomb, or the short-range missile.

Updated: 4/12/06

61. Why on earth would i want to play as julius caesar in a new civ? and some leaders just dont have the attributes on likes. Create a leader is a must.

62. a bit touchy, but if i was really creating a new civ, i'd like for it to have its own religion. like creating a religion that would eventually collapse under more modern creed.

63. there are really little strategic bonuses. for instance, i think there should be reefs on the ocean. that way boats on the reefs and units in woods would not be detected until something. to allow more strategic unit moves.

THE LIST WILL CONTINUE GROWING!!

 

[Inspector Javert]

I'm aboard for almost everything lets hope the developers listen, in Civ II you could create a new civ, and the civics need a HUGE amount of work

 

[etherealcat]

1. Its a great game, but key flaws make it get old and VERY anoying.

This is vague. What exactly are you referring to?

2. The way combat is decided by odds rather than by skill. If I wanted to play a dice game i'd get risk.

hmmm...maybe. I suppose the game could look at the abilities of the units on opposing sides and then make some mathematical calculations. But I am not sure this would make the game more enjoyable.

3. Ever get the feeling its too "child appropriate"? it need more dynamic diplomacy like assasination, betrayl.

I am thinking that 9/11 took the joy out of poisoning your opponent's water supply.

4. The way everything is run by cities. in real life, an espionage mission could destroy a missile silo. not here

Civ4 is better than Civ3 in that it diffuses more of the economy out of the citie: there are more improvements in the countryside to sabotage. suppose this could be enlarged upon in Civ5.

5. Lack of tactics. wheres the glory in rolling die?

Civ4 really isn't a tactical level game, but a strategic level one. Still, there are player created scenarios which can take you down to the tactical level. As for glory, the battlefield is full of chance.

6. three words: VERY GENERALIZED UNITS. you get SWORDSMAN from 350 bc to 800 ad.

Yes, as a military simulation Civ doesn't shine.

7. The religion? like communism, GOOD IDEA, BAD APPLICATION. all religion does in the game is ignite religious wars.

I disagree. Religion increases wealth, promotes alliances which promote trade. It can increase research and culture, promote happiness in your cities, even increase production.

8. the civics are AMAZINGLY screwed up. AMAZINGLY.

You are being vague again. I agree that they can be improved in Civ5, but I am wondering what exactly you are complaining about?

9. combat bonuses. what good is it that only defending units get bonuses.

They don't. Many of the promotions give bonuses to the attacker. As for terrain, the attacking survivors become the defenders in the "return of favor" phase of the turn.

10. I would like to command an ARMY in a STRATEGIC position. not three guys and a chance percentage.

Yes, if you want to have more control over your troops and their actions, you should look at tactical scenarios.

11. techs should be developed more than 1 at a time.

That would be realistic, but I am not sure how this would change gameplay.

12. it needs a future!! this is civ: you've discovered robotics, build this unit! you've discovered future tech!... and it ends.

Science fiction might be an interesting addition to the game.

13. doesnt the box say "IMPLEMENT NEW TECHNOLOGIES"? where did that go??

It might... I don't have my box with me. But what did you envision the phrase meant?

14. again with the box: there are no biplanes, no sphynxes, no space needle, no washington memorial, no empire state, no tower of piza, no golden gate bridge. get the feeling we've been deceived?

I have beefs about the cover art too, but I won't bore you with them.

15. its WAAAAAAAAY to templaty. you have SO many civs at the begining. NO MORE shall appear. IF YOU DESTROY ONE it can never return or nothing. EVER. (REVOLUTIONS!!! WHAT EVER HAPPEND TO REVOLUTIONS AND NEW NATIONS APPEARING?? THE U.S!!)

Civ3 allowed new civs to spawn if one of the civs was destroyed early. One scenario even allowed the USSR to split into two warring nations if the central government was stressed enough. I am sorry to see that these options were not enlarged.

16. SPACE AGE AND BEYOND?? where did the space age go?? where did space go as a matter a fact??

How does this differ from point #12?

17. Dawn of man? 4000 bc?? alot of stuff happend before 4000bc. the uniting of upper and lower egypt for instance.

I think the game truncates history to allow all players an even start.

18. Leaders should come and go. your people should rebel and overthrow you if unhappy. unlike the game.

This could be interesting and might fit with point #15.

19. There are very little ways to make trade routes. methinks it should have 1 per population point.

I would enjoy having the economic aspects of the game developed a bit more. But doing so would take away emphasis on its military aspects.

20. ever played medieval II total war? that is a good idea of strategic, tactical and somewhat diplomatic. now if it only went through the time scope civ does.

I haven't played this and suppose I should.

21. ever get the feeling that the unique units have nothing to do with their real counterparts.

Oh yes, we could nitpick about units and names and the like...there is no doubt about that.

22. ARMED REBELLION. TERRORISM. GUERRILA WARFARE. WHERE DID YOU GUYS GO?

I see this as relating back to point #15. But it would be interesting if we could not only bribe cities into revolt but also to get them to form independent mini-states which have to be conquered. In Civ2 bribery would merely make the city join your empire. And the idea of sponsoring terrorist or revolutionary armed units could be worth developing.

23. units should be build on tiles that could be OTHER than a city.

Possibly. Would you have this happen in a fort or military camp or what?

24. lets stop kidding ourselfs. the forts need to be fixed.

I almost never build them, and I have never seen an AI civ build one.

25. maps are too small for my taste.

I think you really want to control your forces on a tactical level. You need a good old-fashioned Strategy & Tactics wargame.

26. needs more detailed ancient and classical periods. its hard to wage a classical war and impossible to wage an ancient one.

I would agree with you about the difficulty of war, which is why I wait until the medieval era to do my war mongering. All things considered, more diversity and complexity is a good thing, but I am sure there are many persons who bought the game and feel overwhelmed by it. And they don't tend to speak up in forums such as this.

27. WE DID NOT USE HALF-NAKED GUYS WITH CLUBS IN 4000 BC. WE HAD BRONZE BY THEN.

Truncated history of the world, per point #15

28. some units you cant even use. they become obsolete almost as soon as they appear.

Yes, I had this problem too. Playing on Epic or Marathon speed helps a lot.

29. WALLS!! we need walls!! and im not talking about city walls. great wall of china, hadrians wall, those wall types.

hmmm... the Great Wall is in Warlords. I'm not sure about the other examples you mention... I seem to recall that extensive border fortifications tended not to be maintained shortly after being built. I think Hadrian's Wall is famous primarily for being in Britain, rather than from its effectiveness.

30. leaders should act more like leaders of their age. sneaky and mean in the modern era, honorable yet aggressive in the classical and peace-hating in the medieval.

I think your generalizations are off, but there might be something to modifying leaders characteristics and attitudes... its an interesting idea... heh, almost enough to make me want to be a game developer!

31. we want more civs! let them be more detailed and stuff.

More is always good, but the more complicated the game, the smaller the market. And the smaller the market, the less resources which can go into developing the game meaning the content of the game will tend to be less. Its hard to find the right balance.

32. the combat command!! (i know im repeating myself mind you) its so annoying!!!

Eh? What are you referring to?

33. implement new units!! customizing your armies with technology and resources!!!

This could be interesting. Let's play with the idea. What do you have in mind?

34. it needs to be less macromanaging. half of the fun is being there with all the heat and action, rather than doing nothing

I really think you want a tactical level wargame.

35. promotions?? one should be able to design units, give them abilities and as they get better give them promotions. not the other way around.

Isn't this a semantic quibble? Aren't we customizing our forces by giving them promotions/abilities? I am thinking that you want to have more control over the customization, which might be equivalent to more "promotions" to be handed out with advanced or specialized training. And this advanced training might require the expenditure of money and time and possibly require facilities to be built.

36. as units go advancing they go losing some cool abilities. not cool.

Examples don't spring to my mind, please pardon my slowness, but could you elaborate?

37. more specific actions, entrench, snipe, barracade, shield wall, spear wall, that kind of stuff to make one a real warlord.

Would these be tactical manuevers that individual units could perform?

38. better seige weapons. doesnt it show a seige tower at the begining? where did it go??

Good question!

39. morale. its important. its huge. its missing.

I agree. And with Great Generals and civs with Charismatic leaders it seems a natural extension.

40. less things to criticize about.

People complain when they have nothing better to do.

41. more dilemas: do i join a war that could destroy the earth, or risk getting ripped to shreads?

How would this translate into game terms?

42. pollution and health issues. how come global warming only appears with ICBMs?

I think pollution was a fairly unpopular feature in Civ3.

43. disasters!! disease, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanos, etc

Volcanoes and disease were in Civ3. I especially like the scenario in which Plague travelled from city to city along trade routes and via the movement of military units.

44. more human things such as crime, education, strife.

Hmmm... I don't know. Maybe, but it seems that would be getting too much into Sim City territory.

45. law restrinctions. the civic may be called "representation", but i see no other power than yourself, and you still get commands like a autoritarian despot.

I think this relates to your point #8.

46. more detailed civics. like having 3 powers system and stuff like that.

I think this relates to your point #8.

47. actually getting to create you civilization. not just copy another and change the names.

Could you expand upon this a little bit?

48. what if WE ( the player ) appeared on the map, represented by a unit? like with all the other ones. we could lift moral and commerce, and stuff like that.

Certainly morale should be in the game. Having the national leader present would boost morale but if the leader was captured or slain, a potentially revolutionary crisis could ensue.

49. The millitary!! it needs work!!! it just needs to stop being so very equal to everyone elses. like a tech investment thing for military, the higher the investment, the stronger the troops.

I think this relates back to your points #33 and #35.

50. fix that tech tree. we had calendars back in ancient greece. and speaking of ancient greece, MORE UNITS PER ERA!! I WILL NOT USE PHALANX FROM THE TIME I DISCOVER BRONZE UNTIL THE TIME I DISCOVER ENGINEERING. IT JUST DIDNT HAPPEN THAT WAY.

Complexity and gameplay balace seem to be the dominant factors here.

51. more dynamic living things. oil deposits eventually runout, mines, fish die, and the same way that forests grow in the game, let oceans flood.

In Civ3 resources could exhaust themselves. I don't think it was a popular feature.

52. artificial land creation. it exists.

An interesting idea which may complement your flooding notion. I would toss in canal building too.

53. the UN needs fixing. badly

What do you have in mind?

54. custom treaty organizations. like the UN, NATO, etc. the player could make them and their cause.

What would be their role in the game?

55. heresy and more violent religion and civil aggression.

I think this relates back to your point #22.

56. it should be harder and more challenging to found a new city. an ancient government would collapse with a new city.

This would fundamentally change the game. I think many players already think the beginning era of the game is too slow.

57. take off the thing were culture is destroyed when a city is captured. look at the pyramids, they've been conquered 5-6 times and they are still as influencial as ever.

I may disagree with you about the Pyramids, but I do agree that losing a cities culture when it is conquered might be wrong.

58. ARMAGEDON!! it needs an "end of the world". nuclear war, pollution something, but it just needs to be possible!

hmmm...

59. why does the game end at 2050? does that mean the world will end at 2050? so there is no future for us? well that sucks (if you did not get it, it means add a future and move the end year up. we want future units, technologies and buildings. we want them. we know were you live.

You have brought this up in at least two other points. Heck, the game has to end sometime

60. there have been other nuclear weapons other than ICBMs. like the bomb, or the short-range missile.

Well, sure, just as there are more tank varieties than "Modern Armor". Increasing complexity does not always translate into more enjoyable gameplay. How would different delivery methods of nukes matter?

61. Why on earth would i want to play as julius caesar in a new civ? and some leaders just dont have the attributes on likes. Create a leader is a must.

Allowing the player to create a new nation, with a custom leader, might be an interesting option.

62. a bit touchy, but if i was really creating a new civ, i'd like for it to have its own religion. like creating a religion that would eventually collapse under more modern creed.

Hmmmm... the challenge of modernity to faith. I think this is essentially what the Free Religion civic is supposed to encapsulate but I suppose it could be expanded upon (with more modern techs reducing religions' effectivness, unless resources are spent shoring up the faith, or something like that)

63. there are really little strategic bonuses. for instance, i think there should be reefs on the ocean. that way boats on the reefs and units in woods would not be detected until something. to allow more strategic unit moves.

Those are interesting ideas.

 

[TylerDurdon]

7. all religion does in the game is ignite religious wars.

Well... thats what they do in real life... isn't it?

3. Ever get the feeling its too "child appropriate"? it need more dynamic diplomacy like assasination, betrayl.


22. ARMED REBELLION. TERRORISM. GUERRILA WARFARE. WHERE DID YOU GUYS GO?

43. disasters!! disease, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanos, etc

53. the UN needs fixing. badly

54. custom treaty organizations. like the UN, NATO, etc. the player could make them and their cause.

Those are good one... A little more edgy diplomacy, or some sort of kings that can be kill is not a bad idea at all!

But for ALL the others... and even these, Civ is one of the most moddable game out there... it's fairly easy to do... and a TON of things has already been done... just check it out... u just might find out 60 reasons less to complain

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, if you want really NASTY stuff, just check out Impalers Spy mod (a part of the CCCP). He has like 6 or 7 extra missions for spies AND I believe spies become available earlier in the game too. You can assassinate Super Specialists within cities, blow up buildings and a range of other really cruel acts. Beyond that, The C&C forum is bursting at the seams with modcomps and modpacks to suit almost any taste. Heck, I am currently starting a mod which will allow the development of Ideologies in the second half of the game, to allow for a decent replacement to religions as a source of diplomatic tension . What I love is how, when Civ4 came out, some people complained that it was 'unmoddable', and yet there are ten times more mods out there than Civ3 after a similar period of time on the market.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sebiche]

now i didnt say it wasnt modable. i was just saying what about the PLAIN game bugs me. i know i could change it myself, and i do try

 

[flamingzaroc121]

17. Dawn of man? 4000 bc?? alot of stuff happend before 4000bc. the uniting of upper and lower egypt for instance.

Well, according to google (and my history book) the first empire was built aruond 2350 B.C. and the Sumerians had only been around for about 1500 years before that soo 4000 is about right. and upper and lower kingdoms united in 3100 B.C.

 

[knigh+]

I am really bothered with production. As it is, a city can use wood from its forests to build a battleship or a stealth fighter. They should separate shields into something like wood, bricks (includes clay,stone,marble), metals, textiles, petroleum products.

 

[TylerDurdon]

Well, according to google (and my history book) the first empire was built aruond 2350 B.C. and the Sumerians had only been around for about 1500 years before that soo 4000 is about right. and upper and lower kingdoms united in 3100 B.C.

From my history lessons, the oldest cities found is Jericho back in -10 000 and Cata Hayuk in -7000, as u know in a civ game u start with a 'settler' in -4000, not an empire!

What u said about the Summerian is right, but they are believed to be from the Indus valley and a civ there that is still merely known (well maybe even more theorical than real but anyway) Proof of commerce in the earliest days of the summerians civ with those Indus people as been found!

So -4000 aint accurate... but WTH its only a game after all

 

[Sebiche]

an remember that some of the oldest civilizations date back to 10,000 BC (like in japan)

 

[flamingzaroc121]

From my history lessons, the oldest cities found is Jericho back in -10 000 and Cata Hayuk in -7000, as u know in a civ game u start with a 'settler' in -4000, not an empire!

What u said about the Summerian is right, but they are believed to be from the Indus valley and a civ there that is still merely known (well maybe even more theorical than real but anyway) Proof of commerce in the earliest days of the summerians civ with those Indus people as been found!

So -4000 aint accurate... but WTH its only a game after all

good poiny, and you are absolutely right, it is just a game, and they were probably trying to find a happy medium between everything that we know and everything we think we know

 

[deanej]

To be a civilization, a group of people need to have cities (which are centers of trade; population alone does not set a village apart from a city), specialized workers, writing (writing should be a starting tech for all civs), "advanced" technology (this is why civs in civ 4 have starting technologies), and complex institutions (such as government, family, and organized religion).

 

[Cat Springs]

Did you mention Barbarians only attack AI's 1% of the time, and AI's only attack Barbarians 1% of the time. Makes you want to only play against real people!