Any reason not to uninstall?

[malclave]

Great... Another thread where the 2 lucky people who can actually play the game without problems tell the person with problems with their game to piss off.

::shrug::

His opinion of the game is that it "sucks ass", then asks for other peoples' opinions as to whether they think he should uninstall.

He's getting some answers, and several say he should uninstall and move on.

 

[Harrier]

I know I will be flamed for saying this - but it is the truth.

The majority of people having problems (not all) either have one or more of the following:

A). A system that is marginal or below spec.

B). Possible faulty hardware - i.e. cooling fan not working properly. Memory not seated properly. etc.

C). Do not have the latest opperating system or device drivers.

D). Regardless of the system spec - they do not do regular system maintenace. At least once every two weeks. Some should be done more often, some once a month.

i.e.

- do not have updated anti-virus software.
- do not run anti addware/spyware etc programs.
- do not run registery checking programs.
- do not run diskclean, to remove the recycle bin/unwanted files/internet trash etc.
- do not run scandisk to check the hard drive (on reboot only)
- do not defagment the drive (at least once a month - and do it at least twice). AND before and after installing new software/patches.

A computer is not a toy to play with when you want to and otherwise ignore it.

It is more like a car - if you do not treat it properly and give it regular services -it will break down.

 

[King Flevance]

Alot more has been discussed here than simple hardware issues. That is only 1 fault that was brought up out of about 8. Even having the game running with no conflicts on your system doesnt solve the majority of the issues discussed in the gameplay.

 

[azzaman333]

So how often did you use these units in C3C? Were there any strategies that these units provided that were better than build-tank-armies-and-go-kill?

When i get to the Modern Era in Civ 3, i will always have a small taskforce of paratroopers to drop into the enemy territory to pilliage key resources. I will also have helis to quickly move TOW infantry to border towns for quick protection.

Although they rarely came into play, C3C style colonies were a tad exploitive: you could get a valuable resource for the cost of the cheapest unit in the game with no recurring cost.

In virtually every case in C3C, building a city on a resource is better than a colony.

Domination is a lazy man's conquest.

You're ignoring my point.

So.... play a harder difficulty level.

I do not have the skills to play on a higher difficulty, nor do i want win culturally.

Looks can be deceiving. Civ4 combat is far richer than the boring A/D method of C3C.

The boring A/D was simple, yet complex. Simple that you knew how each unit compares, yet complex due to requiring units to take specific roles. Civ 4 units can do anything (with the exceptions of machine guns, scouts and explorers).

Gee, I didn't notice that only about .2% of the hundreds/thousands of posters on the Civ IV forums could run the game without it falling on its ass.

Honestly, you're making it out much worse than it actually is.

Notice the sarcasm. I'm saying that if you can play the game without problems, and someone else cant, it would be useful if you helped rather than saying "U stoopid n00b, go play sumfin else ur 2 ******** 2 play this game neway"

While I agree that people might be a bit harsh, the OP seems to be asking for it by posting such an inflammatory, rhetorical question in the General Forum. A bit more patience in the Tech Forum probably would have paid off better without the flames. Now, on to your irrelevant venom.

If your asking for help in a tech support forum, you should be getting tech support rather than flames.

then later...

Would you like to makeup your mind?

First you want more units (which, BTW, would mean more animations and models to make the game even more unplayable for the low-end) then you take the (IMO) brilliant response of the Promotion system and say CIV is not supposed to be a wargame. Here's the brilliance of Promotions: even with just 3 levels, CIV has more units in the basic game than C3 imagined having WITH years worth of Mods. It adds an incredible strategic (Take a Promo that further enhances a Unit's strength or one that covers a weakness) and tactical (take a Promo now for fast healing or later to tailor to an unknown enemy) layer.

The promotions make you focus on the individual units rather than the army as a whole. That is what im complaining about.

This is either misinformed or misinformation. Try this out on a game (preferrably with a Creative Civ for faster culture coverage): wait until a resource that is outside one of your city's fat crosses enters your cultural radius, then improve it and build a road between it and your trade network. Check your city's resource box Used this on a recent game where I had Copper right next to my Capital, but best available Iron was several squares off. No need for the extra Worker of C3.

I'm not talking about resources 1-2 sqares outside the fat cross, im talking about the resource hiding in the middle of a desert or tundra, that no city should be near in the first place.

Ever seen the guy here who won a Diplo victory with Ghandi without building a single Unit? That's an impressive Domination by a Poor Man.

What i meant is that if your running out of time for a domination victory, you can easily just vote yourself as the leader of the un and for a diplo victory.

So winning the game by turtling should be easier? You already have the strategic advantage of being on the defensive without the dependance on AI partners of the diplo victory, what more do you want?

Being on the defensive is never a good thing.

Oh, and Religion stinks too.

Yes it does, because all religions do exaclty the same thing. You could've called them Religion A, Religion B etc.

Funny that message has never made it to my old box which has yet to crash with CivIV under either 52 or 61. The point isn't to say "NYAHHH! NYAHHH! I can play and you can't," but there are quite probably many more people who can play fine than can't and several of those have seen their problems fixed. Claiming a problem that some people have as a general fault of the game is rather shoddy reasoning.

My machine is only a little lower than the recommended specs, so i expect a little lag and the odd crash. But constant crashing on the wonder movies (which i want to see), major lag when ive met all nations on a standard or larger map, and crashing for no apparent reason gives me the idea that there are some major problems with this game.

His opinion of the game is that it "sucks ass", then asks for other peoples' opinions as to whether they think he should uninstall.

He's getting some answers, and several say he should uninstall and move on.

Im sure he'd rather that the game worked, so he hasnt wasted $80AU (roughly)

 

[armchairknight]

If you're not having fun, why wouldn't you uninstall? I would. It's a game, not work. Life's way too short to waste time not having fun when you actually have the chance to enjoy yourself.

Well, I must be off now. I've an empire to run for a few hours before I go to bed.

 

[romelus]

i think you should just uninstall the game and never play it again

 

[Mesix]

Great... Another thread where the 2 lucky people who can actually play the game without problems tell the person with problems with their game to piss off.

Civilizaiton 4 is a beautiful looking (if your computer can run it) dumbed-down version of C3C.
They wanted more variety in the units bulit, yet they took away paratroops, helicopters etc.
They wanted to change it so you didnt plan cities everywhere, yet they took away colonies so if you need a resource you have to build a city on/near it.
Diplo vic is even worse than C3C, since its the lazy-mans Domination.
Culture victory is stupider now than in C3C. If you can get 3 cities with 50,000 culutre, your not playing on a hard enough difficulty.
Unit promotions make Civ 4 look like a war game, rather than an empire building game.
The 3D graphics look stupid, and cause peoples computers to crash.

I could go on, but i'd rather play Civ 3 tbh.

Well...that makes one of us. I thought Civ III was a waste of money and uninstalled after less than a month. You could tell that Sid had nothing to do with Civ III because it was too different from the successful model that has been the hallmark of the series. I don't think fans of Civ III will ever be happy with Civ IV because they crave the micro management of Civ III and dislike the simplicity of Civ IV. I think the simplicity is one of the things that makes Civ IV a great game. If you disaree, then don't play it.

 

[azzaman333]

Well...that makes one of us. I thought Civ III was a waste of money and uninstalled after less than a month. You could tell that Sid had nothing to do with Civ III because it was too different from the successful model that has been the hallmark of the series. I don't think fans of Civ III will ever be happy with Civ IV because they crave the micro management of Civ III and dislike the simplicity of Civ IV. I think the simplicity is one of the things that makes Civ IV a great game. If you disaree, then don't play it.

Actually i enjoy the less MMing in Civ 4. What i dont enjoy is the pretty graphics (which are ugly IMO). and the way it is made makes it feel like a very slow rts to me.

 

[King Flevance]

I don't think CIv 4 is anything to brag about as is. I liked 1,2,&3. After warlords I think we might have a good game here, but I stand by the fact that I don't think the game was finished when released. I think Warlord's is the second half. Also, I won't be getting Warlords until it is really cheap (20 bucks or less.) Otherwise I am paying over 80 bucks for the full game and that is rediculous. I see that as having people pay 60 bucks for the install disc and 40 for the play disc. Its rediculous.

Don't think I am not tempted to do that which will go unsaid. However, I will not. But because of my own views against that act, I am going to not be purchasing Warlords for quite possibly a over a year after its release, maybe a couple. I won't be giving in because T2 is more concerned about my money than it is the quality of the game they sold me initially. The acceptance of this game overwhelms me.

 

[Smidlee]

Obviously if you wait to buy any game with all it's expansion you would be coming out ahead. Of course companies knows there will be many gamers who waits since you see bundle packs all the time. It's really isn't a no brainer if you can wait gaming is a lot cheaper. I bought Heroes Platinum for $30 a few years ago and got all 3 heroes with all their expansion. I waited to buy Call of duty Edition Box and will wait for the Call of Duty 2 bundle as well. Plus if you wait most of the bugs will be worked out. I will probably do the same with Oblivion just like i did with Morrowind since I'll be playing Civ4 and Galciv2 for a while.
This is true with consoles as well as PC hardware. I bought a GF 7800 GT over 6 months ago and now it's $100 cheaper than when I bought it. It will be cheaper to wait to buy Xbox 360 after it been out for a while as well.

 

[The-Hawk]

A while back, someone told me I should rent a particular movie because it was a great movie. I watched for 20 minutes, decided I didn't like it, and turned it off. Why is this so hard? Not everybody has the same taste, if the game doesn't work for you, then don't play it. Life is too short.

I must admit, however, I am perplexed at the "dumbed down" comments. Maybe it's just me, but I think CIV at Deity is much harder than CIII at Sid. If the game is too easy, ramp up the difficulty level. Or, find a new way to challenge yourself at your current level (e.g. try to beat your best time).

PS... I am lucky enough to have a relatively new PC, and I didn't even buy the game until the 1.52 patch was out. I have had zero problems with crashes or with the performance of the game. However, I am sympathetic with the comments about the game not being ready upon release. This is an unfortunate problem in the industry. If I was experiencing performance problems after shelling out money for the production release of a game, I'd be pissed about it too.

 

[cairo140]

To the OP, feeling stubborn today, mate?

The logic in your rant is as atrocious as you claim the AI in this game to be. Let's take Oblivion, for instance, a game that you seem to favour. If I went out and said:

"Oblivion is the worst game ever! I turn all my settings to the max possible on 2400x1800 resolution, and it runs only 2 FPS, and it is absolutely UNPLAYABLE!!! I REFUSE to turn down my settings. Oblivion has terrible programming if I cannot run it on max settings, and when there are a lot of NPCs at once, the game gets really really slow."

People would call me a nutjob.

PLEASE UNINSTALL THE GAME AND LEAVE US ALONE!!!

 

[King Flevance]

Alot more has been discussed here than simple hardware issues. That is only 1 fault that was brought up out of about 8. Even having the game running with no conflicts on your system doesnt solve the majority of the issues discussed in the gameplay.

Quoting myself to repeat it. I find it amusing if you post anything against the game and only 1 is hardware people focus only on that reason and fail to discuss the others.

 

[azzaman333]

I must admit, however, I am perplexed at the "dumbed down" comments. Maybe it's just me, but I think CIV at Deity is much harder than CIII at Sid. If the game is too easy, ramp up the difficulty level.

Overly simplified would be a more appropriate term than dumbed down imo. And C IV Deity is harder than C III Sid because the AI gets more bonuses, not because the AI is smarted.

PLEASE UNINSTALL THE GAME AND LEAVE US ALONE!!!

Comments like this are of no help, and make you look like an immature 8 yr old.

 

[wmtrexler]

Comments like this are of no help, and make you look like an immature 8 yr old.

Look the problem here is that the OP is not asking for help. You should reread his post.

He is obviously disappointed with his purchase and asks if he should uninstall.

First of all he should be mature enough to make such a decision himself. However since he asked I responded with:

You should immediately uninstall and leave the rest of us in peace.

Since his post tells me that he is unhappy and probably will never be happy with the game this is a valid response.

Instead of wasting his time posting here he should be taking advantage of any return policies that may exist for him. Or if return is not possible he could resell the game to someone who will like it or try trading it to a game store for credit on a game he will enjoy playing.

If you azzaman333 are having problems with the game or if you do not like it; then you need to decide for yourself if it is worth keeping. If you want to keep it then I suggest trying several of the methods already mentioned here for improving your games stability.

Other wise I suggest that you uninstall and try one of my suggestions: 1)Resell 2)Trade 3)Smash it with a hammer. Perhaps you will be happier.

Good Luck

 

[Catcher]

If your asking for help in a tech support forum, you should be getting tech support rather than flames.

Which is why I took the liberty of reading the OP's post in the Tech Support area before posting here. There were no flames. Some posters were less helpful in their suggestions than I would like, but that's the nature of unofficial tech help. The OP exaggerated the responses, most likely as part of his frustration with the game.

The promotions make you focus on the individual units rather than the army as a whole. That is what im complaining about.

Again, what is your point? How does adding X more different types of units
make the game better by default? To add more to my contention that the Promotion system is far superior, consider the decision as to whether one should try to build a few "super-units" through constant combat and promotion or spread them through a larger group of specialist units. Strategic richness is about choices and making those choices carry an impact. CIV's Promotion system already does that well and can only get better.

I noticed in another post you talked about tactics you liked to use in C3, but that they were largely enabled by the C3C expansion. Isn't it a bit unfair to compare an unexpanded product to the further developed predecessor? I don't remember helicopters being terribly impressive in C3, but then, I didn't play that iteration too long and never got the expansion.

I'm not talking about resources 1-2 sqares outside the fat cross, im talking about the resource hiding in the middle of a desert or tundra, that no city should be near in the first place.

Then you should get the resource another way. I tend to have cities with pretty big cultural crosses so I haven't had anything that was really so remote. Besides, again it comes down to making the Player make a hard choice (marginal city vs find it elsewhere) instead of just build an inbetween (colony).

What i meant is that if your running out of time for a domination victory, you can easily just vote yourself as the leader of the un and for a diplo victory.

How is this any different from C3 (or real life for that matter)? The point I was making is that it is also a real option for someone who is not "just short of domination" and, in fact, sets out not to from the beginning.

Being on the defensive is never a good thing.

Why? Isn't one of the goals of a good game to allow for a number of playstyles and strategies? Options for Players to fall back on if initial forrays are less than successful?

Yes it does, because all religions do exaclty the same thing. You could've called them Religion A, Religion B etc.

Or introduced all sorts of special bonuses and penalties that, besides alienating a potential customerbase, would have required extensive playtesting, balancing, and rebalancing after Players found the one best religion combo. I think that the issue that you have (and it seems some others as well) is that the Design Decision for CIV was "Simple and Elegant" instead of "More stuff than C3C."

My machine is only a little lower than the recommended specs, so i expect a little lag and the odd crash. But constant crashing on the wonder movies (which i want to see), major lag when ive met all nations on a standard or larger map, and crashing for no apparent reason gives me the idea that there are some major problems with this game.

Taking one example of one machine is still shoddy reasoning because there are so many examples of machines that have no problem. It's just like saying, for example, that Mercedes makes bad automobiles because you get one that requires constant repairs. It may be improper usage, it may just be a bad car out of many good ones.

 

[gunkulator]

When i get to the Modern Era in Civ 3, i will always have a small taskforce of paratroopers to drop into the enemy territory to pilliage key resources.

Not before the AI bombs your paratroopers into oblivion. Exposed units in Civ3 are attacked relentlessly until they are killed. By the modern era, the world is rail connected which basically means every AI unit can attack you if you are in their territory. At least in Civ2 paratroopers could drop and move in the same turn. Civ3 paratroopers are one of the most poorly thought out units in the game.

I'm assuming tech and resource parity here. If the AI has no oil or the tech for bombers, well, then you've already won.

I will also have helis to quickly move TOW infantry to border towns for quick protection.

I prefer 0 movement rails and Mech Infantry. Gets you there faster and with more defense. For the cost of the cheapest unit in the game, the worker, you can build airfields which lets you fly in bunches of Mech Inf from overseas. I've never seen a need for helicopters - another poorly thought out unit.

In virtually every case in C3C, building a city on a resource is better than a colony.

Of course. So do the same in Civ4. The difference is that there's no cost to plop cities all over the place in Civ3 whereas in Civ4, you will have to pay maintenance.

You're ignoring my point.

I'm just repeating a complaint from Civ2 types who thought domination was a cheasy way to win when Civ3 came out. Becoming the largest civ in Civ4 requires more than just spamming cities everywhere like in Civ3. If your cities and land are not sufficiently improved, you can't afford to become the biggest. Responsible civ management is rewarded in Civ4.

I do not have the skills to play on a higher difficulty, nor do i want win culturally.

You can't complain that the game is too easy and then complain you can't play at higher difficulties.

The boring A/D was simple, yet complex. Simple that you knew how each unit compares, yet complex due to requiring units to take specific roles. Civ 4 units can do anything (with the exceptions of machine guns, scouts and explorers).

If you don't think Civ4 has specialized units, then you can't have played very much. Try attacking cities with an army of Longbows and defending with Swordsmen and see how you do. Both have a strength of 6 so you must be able to do anything with them, right?

 

[pub hero]

This is really a dumb argument. I can understand that some people are pissed that the game crashes or slugs... but if you don't like it - don't play it.

I've played Day of Defeat for four years - when Source was released 90% of the players thought it was terrible. Well guess what? That 90% forgot about the game and kept playing v 1.3, while a different community took up Source. And honestly, you've never seen a more dumbed down - noob padded design than what DoD: Source offers. It's really quite atrociously mainstream.

The point is - if you're really, really dissatisfied with a game don't dwell too much on *****ing about it. You'll be heard, but nothing will be done. I like Civ IV more than III, but if you don't - deal with it. Stick to what you like.

 

[azzaman333]

Again, what is your point? How does adding X more different types of units make the game better by default? To add more to my contention that the Promotion system is far superior, consider the decision as to whether one should try to build a few "super-units" through constant combat and promotion or spread them through a larger group of specialist units. Strategic richness is about choices and making those choices carry an impact. CIV's Promotion system already does that well and can only get better.

The super units wont work, because sooner or later the RNG will turn against them. Then your army consists almost entirely of unpromoted units, leaving you significantly weaker. And about the X units there is much more variety in your army. Since one of Civ 4's main aims was to promote combined arms, reducing the number of units seems stupid and hypocritical to me.

I noticed in another post you talked about tactics you liked to use in C3, but that they were largely enabled by the C3C expansion. Isn't it a bit unfair to compare an unexpanded product to the further developed predecessor? I don't remember helicopters being terribly impressive in C3, but then, I didn't play that iteration too long and never got the expansion.

Whilst Helis were less than impressive in Civ 3 vanilla, they still had a purpose IMO. I also hate the way naval bombardment works now. Why is it that a ship cannot blow up a mine on the coast, or a farm, or a road?

Then you should get the resource another way. I tend to have cities with pretty big cultural crosses so I haven't had anything that was really so remote. Besides, again it comes down to making the Player make a hard choice (marginal city vs find it elsewhere) instead of just build an inbetween (colony).

But you'd have to agree, that it is highly hypocritical of them to take away colonies, yet want to reduce the cities built.

How is this any different from C3 (or real life for that matter)? The point I was making is that it is also a real option for someone who is not "just short of domination" and, in fact, sets out not to from the beginning.

In Civ 3, if you've been warring to get a lot of land, you'll be hated by many civs making it close to impossible to win Diplomatically. In Civ 4, if you have a large empire you can literally vote yourself the winner with no bearing from any other civ. My problem isnt with Diplo wins, its the fact that the higher pop civs get more votes.

Why? Isn't one of the goals of a good game to allow for a number of playstyles and strategies? Options for Players to fall back on if initial forrays are less than successful?

The only time you should be on the defensive is if you want your enemy to keep sending units into your territory so you can pick them off. But only if you're building a counter-attack force.

Or introduced all sorts of special bonuses and penalties that, besides alienating a potential customerbase, would have required extensive playtesting, balancing, and rebalancing after Players found the one best religion combo. I think that the issue that you have (and it seems some others as well) is that the Design Decision for CIV was "Simple and Elegant" instead of "More stuff than C3C."

I dont want them to have game breaking differences. just subtle differences like X get +10% science, Y gets +10% culture, Z gets +1 promo point etc. They did it with communism and fascism in C3C (both which couldve caused massive uproars).

Taking one example of one machine is still shoddy reasoning because there are so many examples of machines that have no problem. It's just like saying, for example, that Mercedes makes bad automobiles because you get one that requires constant repairs. It may be improper usage, it may just be a bad car out of many good ones.

Civ 4 is the only game i've got in the last 12 months which has had problems that i cant explain on my end.

Not before the AI bombs your paratroopers into oblivion. Exposed units in Civ3 are attacked relentlessly until they are killed. By the modern era, the world is rail connected which basically means every AI unit can attack you if you are in their territory. At least in Civ2 paratroopers could drop and move in the same turn. Civ3 paratroopers are one of the most poorly thought out units in the game.

I'm assuming tech and resource parity here. If the AI has no oil or the tech for bombers, well, then you've already won.

Both your border and your enemies are covered in fighters, leaving both sides bombers in great danger. You cant drop a few Infantry or TOW infantry with a heli since they'll get shot down too. Paratrooper army is PERFECT for a situation like this.

I prefer 0 movement rails and Mech Infantry. Gets you there faster and with more defense. For the cost of the cheapest unit in the game, the worker, you can build airfields which lets you fly in bunches of Mech Inf from overseas. I've never seen a need for helicopters - another poorly thought out unit.

Helis rebase to the city you need the TOWs right now. the Mech Inf will back them up in a couple of turns.

Of course. So do the same in Civ4. The difference is that there's no cost to plop cities all over the place in Civ3 whereas in Civ4, you will have to pay maintenance.

Which is where the lack of colonies is a problem.

I'm just repeating a complaint from Civ2 types who thought domination was a cheasy way to win when Civ3 came out. Becoming the largest civ in Civ4 requires more than just spamming cities everywhere like in Civ3. If your cities and land are not sufficiently improved, you can't afford to become the biggest. Responsible civ management is rewarded in Civ4.

No it isnt. They just made conquest more desirable by razing every foreign city you come across, and since having a settler doesnt keep you alive, even easier.

You can't complain that the game is too easy and then complain you can't play at higher difficulties.

Which has nothing to do with what i said. i never said the game was too easy, i just said that if you win culturally, your not playing on a hard enough difficulty level.

If you don't think Civ4 has specialized units, then you can't have played very much. Try attacking cities with an army of Longbows and defending with Swordsmen and see how you do. Both have a strength of 6 so you must be able to do anything with them, right?

If Longbows are meant to be defensive, and swords are menat to be offensive, why not give them A/D values to represent that? As it is, you can use longbows to attack cities, and swordsmen to defend. i actually HAVE done that.

 

[gunkulator]

Both your border and your enemies are covered in fighters, leaving both sides bombers in great danger. You cant drop a few Infantry or TOW infantry with a heli since they'll get shot down too. Paratrooper army is PERFECT for a situation like this.

I think you're starting to reach now. Fighters have only half their range usable for interception so unless you're talking one or two tiles deep into AI territory, your fighters are not going to intercept AI bombers bombing your paratroopers. If you're that close to the border just sent in an Modern Armor or Mech Inf army and let them do the pillaging. Depending on how far they have to go, they can move and pillage all in one turn. Deeper within AI territory, your fighters can't intercept and you will be subject to bombing.

Helis rebase to the city you need the TOWs right now. the Mech Inf will back them up in a couple of turns.

With rails, the Mech Inf also get there right away.

Which is where the lack of colonies is a problem.

I still don't see the problem. You may need to build the occasional garbage city but so what? All it costs you is city maintenance. Does this really break the game for you?

No it isnt. They just made conquest more desirable by razing every foreign city you come across, and since having a settler doesnt keep you alive, even easier.

Not nearly as desirable as in Civ3 where you get free slaves when you raze a city. Typically by the mid-to-end of the Middle Ages, I will have zero native workers. Talk about incentive to raze! I can't ever recall the "last settler" thing making a difference either way.

Which has nothing to do with what i said. i never said the game was too easy, i just said that if you win culturally, your not playing on a hard enough difficulty level.

And this is unlike Civ3 how? How many 100k culture games on Sid were there? With leaders tied to warmongering, Civ3 made it really hard to play any other way. C3C gave sci leaders tied to science but at upper levels they were pretty much unobtainable and even then it was all luck.

If Longbows are meant to be defensive, and swords are menat to be offensive, why not give them A/D values to represent that? As it is, you can use longbows to attack cities, and swordsmen to defend. i actually HAVE done that.

and how did that work out for you? Assuming the AI also had longbows and swordsmen, you should have fared poorly. A bonus for attack or defense is functionally equivalent to A/D but with more flexibility. While it is good that pikemen are a counter to horse units, it doesn't make sense that they also be equally as effective against swords.