A veteran going back to Civ4?

[bennos76]

Let me start by saying that I don't want this thread to be yet another 'Civ5 sux because...', or 'Civ5 rules because....'. There are a thousand other threads covering that, and this shouldn't be one more of them.

So, I'm a civver since Civ1. Played them all, loved them all. I just love the idea of Civ, and hope I'm still around when Civ20 comes out (not likely at 1 release every 4 years, but I can hope). For me, Civ is what computer games were invented for.

Now, it's been a while, but I have some very very fond memories of Civ4-BTS-BUG/BAT... etc. Damn but that felt like one sophisticated and polished game.Years later I can still remember particular games and how they unfolded.

I bought Civ5, and all the DLC to date, as I will buy any other Civ thing that comes along (except civrev and civworld because those are for kids). Because I work and am a dad etc, I don't play quite as much I used to, but I still manage to finish a good solid game every few months or so. For the record, I play lots of other games too.

I haven't played Civ4 since Civ5 was released. I have mixed feelings on Civ5. At first I loved it: 1UPT fantastic improvement, city states brilliant idea. Then after a few games I felt like it had been dumbed down and 'console-ised'. I really missed religion, espionage, leaders with personalities, and the technology tree/race just seems, well, less important somehow. Wind the clock forward a bit, and despite all the criticisms, I am starting to feel this is actually quite a nice game. Some of the basics are really quite good and an improvement on earlier versions. This game has huge 'potential'. I have definately had some 'magic moments' in various games. Moments where I was reminded of why I love Civ. E.g. recently I invaded the US (ironically, ruled by China) on an earth map to try and get the capital, located somewhere in the middle of the continent, had the same landing city (about where NY is) nuked by the AI three times after capturing it, recapturing etc. On another, I'd shifted to a peace footing after deciding the Japanese weren't serious about their DoW, only to find a very unexpected armada appear on my horizon.

Well, I sunk the armada even though I wasn't REALLY prepared for it, and a few more of them after that (playing on Immortal, but usually on emperor). The 'potential' is a niced idea, but it remains just that. The trouble I find is that the 'magic moments' are too far between. I can still walk away from the PC and ponder: now if I shaft Arabia, what will China do... and given the advantages and disadvantages I currently have, what strategy should I take now to really leverage my strengths? But it kind of boils down to something like: I'm going for a tech victory (have been since the start of this game), so I should keep trying to increase my population and build some more science buildings (none left, oh well, build some culture buildings then). Hmmm. A little boring perhaps?

It just feels like there were more 'momentous' decisions back in Civ4. Like, hey, if I play my cards right and get this wonder after reducing Monty's population a bit, I just might be able to pull off an Apostolic palace victory (and if not I'll have gained something in the process), but I'm gonna have to get some missionaries into Spain somehow or this will never work. I gues I'm becoming a little bored with Civ5 lately. Mind you, it's the nature of Civ that you will get bored from time to time. Not every age can be a golden one, or one that involves a global conflict.

So, the point of my post (yes I do have one), is that I'm thinking of reinstalling Civ4 (+BTS and all that). What I'd like to know, is who else has found themselves in a similar situation?

Who else has played Civ4 with all its glorious additions, played Civ5 and enjoyed some parts but been disappointed with others, and has decided to wind back the clock and go back to Civ4? Is it a case of rose coloured glasses? Do we too easily forget some of the frustrations of Civ4? Do we remember the highlights and the 'magic moments' from a good four years of playing Civ4, but forget the boring interludes and monotonous stack management?

But, most importantly, for those who have given Civ5 a good try and gone back to Civ4, do you find yourself thinking about your current game while you're driving to work or brushing your teeth, and whether you can convince Boudicea to ally with you if Tokugawa refuses to come to the party, because you know that your buddy Bismark has been patiently waiting all game for a good opportunity to backstab you? Or, do you fire it up after a game of Civ5 and think, wow, the graphics are looking a little aged, and I forgot I had to manage all of this city happiness stuff, and there's so many units to move... and actually, I kind of know what all the leaders are likely to do in the long run?

Before I commit to another game of CiV, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

[shahjahen]

what i think is going after DLCs to make quick cash has been ruining CIV5, instead of improving it and maturing it like CIV4 was. they gone for short term financial gains of DLC. Civilizations that should been part of main game are been sold as DLCS. i fear this has cost Firaxis quite few followers.
I have gone back CIV4 too as it captures essence of what it meant to play Civ. I felt that Civ 5 is aimed more at console players. It's like a 65 yr old lady dressing up to goto a teenager prom night. doesnt work that way.
If they cant release a decent expansionfor CIV5 and stick to DLCs than it will become just one of those bog standard strategy games out there. It feels like King of strategy games is going to beg for a horse for all my kingdom!!

 

[TM Moot]

Hah, I had to check I hadn't written the OP in my sleep...alot of what you comment upon is how I feel. Been a Civ player since ever, but just can't get into civ5 (too many penalties, not enough choices).

I can't really answer your query though, I have booted up the old girl (BtS) once, but almost as a defiance to the dumbass AI in civ5...

However, i mean to revisit civ4 for some large scale Empire building over Chrimbo, so will be interested in what others say here as well.

 

[sparkyal]

I'm actually curious if Civ 4 runs on a 64 bit system with windows 7 enterprise.

I do hear what you are saying, but for me I want to wait and see this potential come out

 

[LegionSteve]

Before I commit to another game of CiV, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

I like having both 4 and 5 installed, and switch from one to the other when I get bored. Right now I still enjoy 4 more than 5. That doesn't mean I have to dismiss 5 though, and I will surely play it again at some point.

If you do try 4 again, I highly recommend the Legends of Revolution mod (I just like it for the few extra techs and units, so I usually turn revolutions off). It includes BuG and BetterAI too.

As for 5 it has already improved a lot since release. I also found the VEM mod a big improvement. It still seems somehow not as epic as 4 though, and late game time between turns is incredibly slow.

I'm actually curious if Civ 4 runs on a 64 bit system with windows 7 enterprise.

Runs just fine on my system with 64 bit windows 7 pro. Just make sure you don't install in program files - create a C:\Games folder or something instead.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I have Civ3, 4, and 5 on my computer. I would have Civ2 as well except my CD doesn't work (which is a real shame). There's no reason to alternate which games you play, depending on which you are in the mood for.

 

[Ruler]

They are sure different games, for me Civ 5 is like a fresh breath of air, and Immortal gives me always great challenge something I love in Civ series. I miss alot of Stack of Doom though.

What Im saying they are different but its still old good civ.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

what i think is going after DLCs to make quick cash has been ruining CIV5, instead of improving it and maturing it like CIV4 was.

I don't want to give civ V a pass because many of its failings keep me from playing it with any frequency, but let's not let the grass on the other side seem too green. Here are some of the "maturing" features of civ IV through expansions:

- Broken vassal state system that can occasionally refuse capitulation at a higher net power and accept it at a lower net power, when the situation is otherwise equal.
- UN resolutions chosen at random
- Absolutely anything related to the Apostolic Palace, the single most broken basic feature in the game
- AI cheating to detect trades with civs it never met (civ V has this gem too; it knows when you declare on a DoF partner even if it never actually met the civ that died...think they'll patch it? Don't hold your breath)
- Options that are so imbalanced that serious MP players have to ban them (elephants, espionage as examples).
- Basic control commands don't function. Although this is also present in civ V, the roots go way back. Shift click to select/unselect units in a group? I hope you feel lucky! Weren't pressing alt? THE GAME SAYS YOU WERE, and of course now you declare war on your best friend without prompt! Have fun!
- Part of this "maturing" involved taking an in-game option and making it worthless (space elevator). Surely, reducing the #viable options but leaving the garbage in the game is better for strategy ! Makes me think firaxis + treyarch/new infinity ward are holding hands or something.
- How about nerfing redcoats but not touching things like skirmishers, prats, etc . A prat is >25% stronger than the base unit. The redcoat comes much later and had LESS base strength bonus. Which one do you nerf? Lololololol.

Firaxis can handle making some interesting empire building and some creative design...but they have proven time and again...quite thoroughly...that the concepts of balance (obviously, a UU that comes on turn 150 and gives less bonus than a turn 0 UU is the same thing! Derp!), basic programming optimization (lulwut letz uszor fixed numberz insted of variables har har), or making their games run decently on contemporary machines (hi! Spend 2 hours per total game waiting for turn rollover) are well beyond their capability as a developer.

Seriously, the balance sense is so bad that Pokemon does a better job, and it's a low blow to say that .

 

[qalsip1977]

OP you and I sound very similar. I too am 30 something, father of 3, and my busy work and family life keeps me from playing CiV as often as I'd like. And I'm a perfectionist to boot...so the 30-45 minutes a day I can find to play I generally scrap because I can think of something I should have done differently. I think about it at work, I read these forums and ponder how I can tighten up my game, and I think the competitive drive in me is the main reason I don't get bored as you mentioned.

I have loved all of the Civ games from the beginning (I started with Civ2 in college). I have never gone back to previous installments once the new game came out. I did install CiV on the same PC I had Civ4 on when CiV first came out and I did some comparisons then. I chose CiV because I just liked the new look and feel so well. I don't have a problem with DLC (pay for DLC or pay for expansions, same diff IMO) nor do I have any "principle" issues with the supposed "evil empire" CiV has found itsself a part of. It's a fun game!

My lack of boredom stems mostly from staying involved with discussions here in the community and trying different strategies that are being discussed here. Right now I am participating in a science VC using no RAs on Immortal difficulty to see who can get the best time. I've also played games of the week, deity challenges, etc. that keep me interested. There's always things I could say I miss from Civ4...but CiV is our present and forseeable future so I'll support it!

 

[Tabarnak]

Initializing interesting challenges, good mp games and all sort of competitions help the player to stay immersed. If nothing of these options were offered for me, i would have played the game for only a couple of weeks.

Mods can do a similar feeling for a personnal use(or competitions).

Civ5 lacks of options i agree. I just hope that an interesting expansion will bring this game to a more interesting level(sooner the better). 1UPT feature is very interesting for the player but unfortunately the AI just sucks at it. So i hope they will fix that in next weeks and therefore reduce AI bonuses to bring a more ''fair'' game.

 

[Aristos]

If they only gave us the C++ SDK... but I can understand that they are not willing to, because it directly contradicts the DLC model. Why? Because if they release it, modders would do magic, no DLC created by Firaxis will match the mods created by the magicians in this forum... heck, the DLC's are not even matching the limited modding that is going on right now!!! Firaxis patches feed from VEM.

But if they gave us the C++... oh boy. Someone in 2K should have some type of long term vision, shouldn't they?

 

[Shizuko3]

It's over, Civ IV BTS is the last good title.

 

[Ahovking]

bennos76 you have just read my mind well done.

 

[Yngvi]

I've gone back and forth about my feelings regarding CiV. From first love to disappointed hate to true optimism to disappointment and finally a sinking realization that CiV is not to my taste.
Flame me if you want, but the diplomacy is downright screwy in CiV. There is no pleasing them, no appeasing them, no repairing bad relations. I remember in CIV how Kubilai was very hostile to me; I wasn't very powerful and he demanded a map from me. I let him have it, and also a technology. He became quite friendly, began to trade with me, and most importantly, attacked others. In CiV, when they decide to dislike you, it's forever; and they will, no matter what.
Worst of all, though, are the runaway civs in V. No matter what, there are always one or two runaway civs. It is tiresome. The same scenario plays out every time. Last April or so, it looked like the developers had started to pull that back, but the big two-part "balance" patch seems to have restored it, as well as making the diplo more psychotic.
I am not closing my eyes to the flaws of CIV. I especially detest SoDs. But I am becoming nostalgic for IV. I have not played CiV in six weeks, and do not hold out hope in patches. The devs apparently want CiV to be this way. My next game very well might be IV. And I find it much easier to mod also.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Seriously, the balance sense is so bad that Pokemon does a better job, and it's a low blow to say that .

What was wrong with Pokemon? At least after they added dark and steel, I'll concede psychic was overpowered to begin with.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What was wrong with Pokemon? At least after they added dark and steel, I'll concede psychic was overpowered to begin with.

You need to battle competitively to really get a feel. I'll say more in spoilers so this doesn't take up too big a thread footprint.

Spoiler :

- Typing matchups. Bulky water has been popular for many years because it has a SLEW of resists and only 2 weaknesses (electric, grass). Only special abilities comply resist water, and only grass, water, and dragon resist it.

Now, compare that utility to say, 5th gen poison. It's ridiculous. Poison is weak the the most-carried move in the game (earthquake), does absolutely nothing to steel, and carries a lot of resists.

- Weather. They make it worse every gen. Now both ubers AND OU are littered with weather abusers. Their counters are few, so out of 100's and 100's of possible pokemon options, you're forced out of using all but a few handfuls because if you do, it'll just lose to cookie cutter garbage players who can't even think during a match.

- Individual pokes. Victini in UU? Latios and latias in 4th gen OU? I could actually make this go on for ages. I won't, other than to point out that it took a long time just to bump excadrill into ubers.

- The extent of luck-based idiocy in the game. This is the single most glaring flaw, a blinding beacon of bull-. Now, some moves trade accuracy for power. That's a reasonable choice and part of strategy. You want that 120 power fire move to hit? Well, it has a 15% miss chance to compensate its power. Fine. There are, however, a few things about luck that really ruin the game:

1. Hax on moves with almost no chance(IE parahax on tbolt). Nobody runs tbolt to inflict paralysis. It has a 10% chance to do it. On average you'll get that 1 in 3 matches. People run tbolt for its power and typing...but that 10% can screw you

2. Parahax itself. Paralysis' big draw in STRATEGY is the speed reduction. Almost anything paralyzed is very slow to the point that even normally slow things outspeed. Good strategic option and trade with poison or burn! Problem is, idiot nintendo also threw in the junk 25% chance to be "fully paralyzed" and do nothing. You can lose on this. You will occasionally see 3x para in a row, where even 1 success would mean victory. Very rage inducing and strategically worthless, like things failaxis likes to implement.

3. CRITICAL HIT! Small chance on every attack to do double damage....................................AND ignore stat boosts? Lulwut? Crits have no place in competitive play. Ever. If you got out-played and are now walled, be walled every time. Perfect play shouldn't be punished at random when the outcome matters to the players.

4. Stealth rock. This is a terrible move, because it is UNIVERSALLY GOOD. Nothing is immune to it except magic guard. It does more damage on average than the other entry hazard moves, which need more turns to set up and are more rare. It can rip 50% off of a lot of otherwise interesting and viable options, making them worthless. The list of SR users is over 50. The list of pokes who can remove it and are actually viable in competitive play? Maybe 5ish...and the move to remove them can be blocked by simply bringing in a ghost. The openings of matches often feature simply saying "DERP" and throwing up this trash move. I do it also, because it's too good not to use it since it isn't banned.

Seriously, stealth rock is comparable to a classical era unit that has only 1 counter, a 2 strength unit that is completely worthless against everything else and can't enter friendly or enemy cities. Otherwise, said classical era unit defeats everything else. In other words, it's worse than pre-patch horsemen...but widely embraced...

I could go on, but the simply conclusion is that there aren't many viable options because the game isn't balanced; each tier sees the same pokes used over and over and over again because other things simply aren't viable; they are statistically outclassed by the most popular options in every way.

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK, I stopped playing after Gold/Silver/Crystal, so I can't comment on all that. In the original game, Psychic was overpowered because its only real counter were bug pokemon which absolutely sucked. Ghost Pokemon were supposed to do something, but they were Ghost-Poison, which made them actually weak to it. Plus Night Shade wasn't a move that could be super effective.

When they added Dark, it balanced things out to a degree. I didn't think there were any types that were too good to beat. But we're digressing now. Pokemon, of course, wasn't designed to be a serious strategy game.

 

[qalsip1977]

Did anyone ever find out of Civ4 works on Windows 7 64bit? I'm guessing not...

 

[James T]

I frequently think about firing up cIV, but as of yet have been too eager to try something new in V or finish whatever game I'm currently in. I've got ~250 hrs into V and am not bored yet.

Main reason I think about IV is that I wasn't good at it. I never came to the forums while playing IV and sort of meandered through games with very little strategy. I loved the game, but it got very repetitive for me. With V, I took a more competitive approach and am significantly better at it. Thanks to all the brilliant folks around here, I know so much more about game mechanics and strategy, and as a result have a lot more fun. Now I want to go back to IV and play it with my new tools!

In short: yes, I will eventually go back to IV, but not because I don't like V. I love them both.

 

[binhthuy71]

From the perspective of one who bought Civ within days of its appearance in 1991 and who has bought every version of the series since then, Civ V was largely a disappointment. It is not only a disappointment in comparison to Civ IV, it's a disappointment in comparison to the progress of the entire series. Prior versions, whatever their warts (See TMIT's comment above), had a sense of sweep and grandeur. To me, Civ V seems claustrophobic by comparison.

Begin Rant;
This may well be the last full release of Civilization. Whether that's the case or not, why didn't V gratify the requests of gamers over the years to include features like canals, terraforming, navigable rivers, etc., etc.? Why, on large maps and above does Civ run so badly on a computer (Mine) that easily and smoothly handles 3D modelling apps that generate models containing millions of polygons? Civ IV was no better in these and other respects, but Civ V certainly should have been.
End Rant

Do my comments mean that I'm going back to Civ IV? Not sure, I played the heck out of IV. Maybe I'll just join the rest of the gaming world, buy a console and play mindless FPS games.