CIV 4 Games become Boring when Approaching Late Game

[MosheLevi]

I have no intention of criticizing CIV 4 (as the title suggests), so please don’t flame me about the strong title.

I love CIV 4, it is a great game, and I have a lot of fun playing it.
However, I wanted to talk about the late stages of a campaign where I feel the game becomes less interesting and not as fun as the early stages.

In the early stages of the game there is so much to do.
We explore the land, build new cities, and develop our existing cites.
There is also room for early battles and conquering.

When I play the early stages I can easily stay up until 5 am as the game is fun in all aspects.
This will last through the middle part of the campaign until the late stages.

Then at the later stages of the game there is no exploring left to do.
No new cities to build.
Almost no city development is possible and at this point it is just about tweaking which tiles to work and which specialist to have.
At that point there are no new units to unlock.
Battles then become huge with dozens of units and they can easily become repetitive and tedious.

I have played 5 campaigns in the past 6 months and I haven’t finished any of them.
I just end up falling asleep at my chair while playing the game when I am at the later stages of the game, lol.

Does any one here share the same experience?

If so feel free to suggest new concepts that can help making the later stages of the game more fun and interesting.

Here are my ideas:

1) Allow us to continue developing our cities even further.
We should be able to continue working on our existing tile improvements and build additional improvements on top of them.
Cities should grow even further and there should be more specialist that get unlocked at the later stages of the game with interesting benefits.

2) We should be able to unlock additional units, even futuristic units with special abilities.
New units should continue to be available to us long into the later stages of the game.

3) We should be able to engage in large battles quicker and in more interesting way.
I already proposed implementing a Chess like grid battle arena similar to “Heroes of Might and Magic V” in another thread.
This battle mechanic should at least be available to us via an option when we have two large stacks battling it out.

Any additional suggestions are welcome…

 

[exhile]

I think the later stages of the game should focus on small regional wars between superpower states and their smaller allied nations. Some examples are the Soviets in Afghan, the US in Vietnam, and the Iraq war. The capturing of cities and territory is over in the late stages of the game and becomes more of a dispatch of military units for port calls and the sale of military hardware.

Also the consolidation of nations into regional bodies is a goal. After cultural borders have set territories of a country, neighboring nations tend to improve trade relations, co-ordinate military contingencies together and establish a common coastal border.

 

[rysmiel]

I have no intention of criticizing CIV 4 (as the title suggests), so please don’t flame me about the strong title.

It's OK, there are people here who'll happily do your share of criticising Civ 4 for you.

Then at the later stages of the game there is no exploring left to do.
No new cities to build.
Almost no city development is possible and at this point it is just about tweaking which tiles to work and which specialist to have.
At that point there are no new units to unlock.
Battles then become huge with dozens of units and they can easily become repetitive and tedious.

IMO, this is an ongoing problem through the basic games of the entire Civ series, though some mods (Rise and Rule for Civ 3 springs to mind) go a long way to fix that.

1) Allow us to continue developing our cities even further.
We should be able to continue working on our existing tile improvements and build additional improvements on top of them.

Agreed. I want tile improvements not to grow by themselves, but to need reworking to keep up - like irrigation -> farming in Civ 2 - so that you are continually getting new options for what to do with tiles, either to shift what they are being used for, or to make them more efficient at it. I think Civ 4 forces cities to specialise too much too soon; I'd like the options available to make it make sense to shift what a citiy is specialised for over the course of the game,

Cities should grow even further and there should be more specialist that get unlocked at the later stages of the game with interesting benefits.
2) We should be able to unlock additional units, even futuristic units with special abilities.
New units should continue to be available to us long into the later stages of the game.

Strongly agreed. Which needs, I think many more techs.

Any additional suggestions are welcome…

In any version before Civ 4, getting rid of pollution was a late-game necessity. (Except for in Civ 1 where you get to a point where you can easily erase it altogether.) The return of that mechanic, with some tweaks, would be good.

I would like a trade model that combined the Civ 3/4 resources and resource dealing with Civ 2 trade caravans, so you could bundle up a resource and ship it to someone else.

I have not played much BtS, but corporations seem like an idea that could be made into something interesting to do in the late game. More "soft" units, ways of conflict that do not actually involve war, would be good, definitely.

I also think that including multi-layered maps, so that one would get access to an underwater level when one could build submarines, and to an orbital layer when one first got space travel, would open up new spaces to explore and exploit pretty much at the point when a late game currently becomes too full.

 

[MosheLevi]

corporations seem like an idea that could be made into something interesting to do in the late game.

Yes, Corporations are fun.
I enjoy racing to get my first corporation and then spread it out across my cities.
That is a fun feature that works nicely in late game.
However, it is somewhat limited.
It will be nice if there are more corporations and if they are not limited only to the first players who searches them.
I definitely think that the “Corporations” concept can be further developed so it keeps us busy in late game with more options and more things to do.

I also think that including multi-layered maps, so that one would get access to an underwater level when one could build submarines, and to an orbital layer when one first got space travel, would open up new spaces to explore and exploit pretty much at the point when a late game currently becomes too full.

Yes, I think that is a great idea.

Future technologies can allow us to build underwater cities, so we can start exploration all over again.
That will be cool.
That will also allow for new underwater wars with new interesting underwater units.

Then later on we can build space stations and cities in space (third layer) with all kinds of space units.

 

[rysmiel]

Yes, Corporations are fun.
I enjoy racing to get my first corporation and then spread it out across my cities.
That is a fun feature that works nicely in late game.
However, it is somewhat limited.
It will be nice if there are more corporations and if they are not limited only to the first players who searches them.
I definitely think that the “Corporations” concept can be further developed so it keeps us busy in late game with more options and more things to do.

Corporations really should spread with hidden nationality units, and give benefits both the founder and the city where they are built such that you can use them in your opponents' cities too. (If you had one that turned a certain amount of production into food, for example, you could use it offensively to slow down production on a wonder in an enemy city.)

Then later on we can build space stations and cities in space (third layer) with all kinds of space units.

Even if you don't have future techs, there would be a number of interesting options just from modelling contemporary space tech in an orbital layer. And it would make much more sense for that to be where you build your spaceship.

 

[Shackel]

I find the Medieval Age to be the most boring, followed by Ancient-Classical, with Modern actually being the highest on my list.

Why?

Units become MUCH more diverse, and you can really begin planning out strategies instead of having only four major "classes". "Archers", "Mounted", "Melee", "Spears/Pikes".

 

[Argetnyx]

I don't know about civ4, but in Civ3, it gets boring in the modern age. Mainly because your enemies are stronger than they were.

 

[Shackel]

That kind of stuff is fun to me. D:

 

[rysmiel]

I don't know about civ4, but in Civ3, it gets boring in the modern age. Mainly because your enemies are stronger than they were.

Not if you are maintaining a good tech lead, playing them off against each other, and fighting reasonably chosen strategic wars, they're not. Or at least, they may be stronger than they were, but you should be stronger than you were to a much greater extent so they should be easier, not harder, to deal with.

Normally by the modern age in Civ 3 I only have one enemy worth the name left (if I'm playing for spaceship victory, I may well also have a couple reduced to single cities on size-1 islands that I have entirely barricaded with privateers.)

 

[exhile]

Normally by the modern age in Civ 3 I only have one enemy worth the name left (if I'm playing for spaceship victory, I may well also have a couple reduced to single cities on size-1 islands that I have entirely barricaded with privateers.)

What is up with the computer AI taking up all the available island spaces and uncolonized area of the map? By the modern age, all civilizations are also trying to build up their cultural territory. After finishing a game you can watch the replay of prosperity/decline of Civilizations on the map. Also, the spaceship victory should be to Mars and not Alpha Centauri.

 

[da dick]

i heard some of the mods did a decent job of addressing this problem... if you like war. don't remember any mod focusing on more city-enhancing modern/future techs.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree that modern conquests can be quite tedious. But their is a problem with futurism. The problem is that it reduces the importance of everything else, which isn't a good thing. It should only ever become part of the game if it is added onto the end of the game, and not taken into account of the scale of the game. This would mean that everything should still be completed and done by the modern age, but if you happen to run over, there is something there for you.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have RTS unit order speed so of course the waypoints, orders, stacking, moving, and so forth is easy for me. I don't spend a lot of time in mop-up unless I'm gunning for culture and I locked diplo so that nobody can declare. That can be a pretty boring end turns x50 or even x75.

My biggest issue with civ IV late game is that they made the game take up so much computing power (was this really necessary?) that the game is ultra slow. In fact, that might be my single GREATEST complaint about the game. IMO much of the gameplay RULES are improvements over past incarnations, but sacrificing game performance on reasonable machines for appearance isn't truly acceptable in my book.

Some games were designed to live on their eye candy, action, etc. Civ for the PC isn't and was never that type of game ---> its fun comes from its strategic depth and decision-making. The visuals don't have to be spectacular, just OK. IMO IV went for the former, at the expense of performance on any but the most stellar PCs out there. But this is a TURN BASED STRATEGY game. Why is it taking more computing power than reasonably recent shooters?

So the modern era is plagued for my weak machine, since it can be 10 seconds or more in between turns. On huge maps a LOT more (preventing me from playing them at all...literally over half my time would be spent waiting between turns after 1000 AD. Literally.). If that wasn't there, I wouldn't find modern times boring at all.

Admittedly it's easy to fleece the AI in modern times though as it just wasn't programmed to properly take all avenues of attack into account...and with the # of options I'd imagine that wouldn't be easy to do.

 

[Camikaze]

Computer slowness can be an issue, but luckily it isn't for me. The longest it's ever taken on my computer is 10 seconds in between turns. On my old computer, however, it would routinely take up to twenty minutes. I think the best solution to this problem would not be to cut back on graphics or anything like that, but to have settings that suit slow computers.

 

[exhile]

I have RTS unit order speed so of course the waypoints, orders, stacking, moving, and so forth is easy for me. I don't spend a lot of time in mop-up unless I'm gunning for culture and I locked diplo so that nobody can declare. That can be a pretty boring end turns x50 or even x75.

My biggest issue with civ IV late game is that they made the game take up so much computing power (was this really necessary?) that the game is ultra slow. In fact, that might be my single GREATEST complaint about the game. IMO much of the gameplay RULES are improvements over past incarnations, but sacrificing game performance on reasonable machines for appearance isn't truly acceptable in my book.

Some games were designed to live on their eye candy, action, etc. Civ for the PC isn't and was never that type of game ---> its fun comes from its strategic depth and decision-making. The visuals don't have to be spectacular, just OK. IMO IV went for the former, at the expense of performance on any but the most stellar PCs out there. But this is a TURN BASED STRATEGY game. Why is it taking more computing power than reasonably recent shooters?

So the modern era is plagued for my weak machine, since it can be 10 seconds or more in between turns. On huge maps a LOT more (preventing me from playing them at all...literally over half my time would be spent waiting between turns after 1000 AD. Literally.). If that wasn't there, I wouldn't find modern times boring at all.

Admittedly it's easy to fleece the AI in modern times though as it just wasn't programmed to properly take all avenues of attack into account...and with the # of options I'd imagine that wouldn't be easy to do.

I totally agree with the massive computing power required during the later eras of the game. Even after buying a new computer, it's obvious that the Civ4 engine takes longer & longer in the modern era to compute the next moves by the AI. This is even more apparent when expansion packs & patches are installed.

The minimum requirements to play Civ4 are completely understated. Even the recommened requirements don't cut it.

But hey, like a game of chess, more careful thought is needed to decide your next move against an opponent during the late stages. Chess pieces are strategically positioned but also taken off the board which needs consideration and calculation than in the beginning.

 

[Windsor]

MosheLevi:

- In my opinion we get a LOT of new units late-game. And your choices in war have never been more diverse. In theory late-game warfare should be the most entertaining part.

- I don't belive in just adding more. You say it's boring to tweak tiles. I agree, but it will not become more fun just because you get a new improvement. New improvements/specialists will mean more tedious tweaking.

It's fun to micromanage a small empire early on. It's fun because it actually matters. Farming that grassland and hooking up that stone is an important decision for your empire. Kings did such things. Late game micro however I feel like the city gov. Changing a tile have little impact on your empire and you have way to many cities to manage. It's not a job worthy a president. I think you should be able to control things like trade more than choosing between free market and mercantilism and number of trade routes. Things that matters empire wide.

Diplo could give more possibilities. Say Ghandhi have capitulated to Brennus. I should be able to offer Ghandi a defensive pact, shared research and no taxes. This could then make Ghandi feel strong enough to finally break free.

Last, one of my biggest complaints. And this is actually also about visual apperance. I HATE RAILROADS! Mid to late game every single tile will have a railroad. This makes the map look ugly and it's very unrealistic. Building a railroad across your whole empire should be expensive and a major strategic decision rather something your automated workers does. If railroads would cost money and impact both growth and trade in addition to troops movement it would affect both war and empire management. As a nice bonus the maps would look more appealing and not so over-crowded.

I want to feel presidential and do things that matter!

 

[rysmiel]

I agree that modern conquests can be quite tedious. But their is a problem with futurism. The problem is that it reduces the importance of everything else, which isn't a good thing.

Why does it "reduce the importance" ? That's like saying having a Modern Age "reduces the importance" of possibly conquering the whole world early on.

I'm inclined to think there should be an equivalent of the spaceship victory for the end of each age, so that you effectively pick your end era as well as your start one; it would work better with more ages though. Which would I think make the future stuff optional enough for those who do not want it there by default.

 

[rysmiel]

- I don't belive in just adding more. You say it's boring to tweak tiles. I agree, but it will not become more fun just because you get a new improvement. New improvements/specialists will mean more tedious tweaking.

You don't find that a lot of the fun of the late game ?

Admittedly, things like cottages, that need to be left to grow over time, make repurposing tiles as you acquire more development possibilities harder and less use in Civ 4 than it is in 2 or 3.

Late game micro however I feel like the city gov. Changing a tile have little impact on your empire and you have way to many cities to manage.

How many is too many ? A couple of hundred is fine by me.

Last, one of my biggest complaints. And this is actually also about visual apperance. I HATE RAILROADS! Mid to late game every single tile will have a railroad. This makes the map look ugly and it's very unrealistic

Civ 4 makes this harder than earlier versions too, which is a thing I hate about it.

I want to feel presidential and do things that matter!

[/quote]

But you are not playing the ruler. You are playing the civilisation. To me, that comes with wanting to manage everything.

 

[UWHabs]

One problem with the late game is that often you play at a level where you're too strong for it (since nobody likes to lose). So, the whole game, you diverge from the AI, and in the end, it's modern armor vs. infantry, and you can really ignore everything else in your empire, set your 4-5 biggest cities to just pump out units, and you can't fail. Every now and then add a new happiness building, but late-game, slider choices are basically maxing out research, or stockpiling cash to upgrade.

The big issue is how much do you want to change things without causing havoc. Add any sort of soft caps in like having unit costs go up exponentially, or starting to get unhappiness from "We're spending too much on our military" and people will complain about micromanaging.

It would be interesting to have a mode where late game if your empire gets bigger, you have to start dealing with internal issues. Maybe instead of just having a capital and forbidden palace, you can start managing states or provinces within your land. Then you have to manage resources between them, transfers between them, and other issues like that instead of assuming everyone on this big continent of yours is all happy to be under your control.

Okay, maybe that's not such an easy issue, but there should be certain late-game stuff to help out. As mentioned, more improvements, maybe have secondary improvements. Even if you change it so that early game you have farm/mine/cottage, maybe transform the late-game ones like windmills/watermills/workshops not as replacements for other improvements, but have it so you can have one of each.

Maybe even changing the dynamics late-game. Instead of a research institute allowing 2 scientist slots and giving you +25% research in the city, have the research institute take up 2 scientist slots (so force you to run 2 scientist), but it will give a different bonus (maybe have a separate "research" slider to develop new technologies, new bonuses). So, maybe the late-game events like the clean coal would change from being simply randomly chosen, to being fuelled by research. Depending on the ratio of scientists to artists to engineers in your research labs (or other similar buildings) gives you options for what choices to go.

That way, you bring back some micromanagement into your cities. Now you have to decide how you allocate your researchers, and maybe it helps alleviate some issues with specialists being a bit less useful late-game (since it takes so long to get great people).

Throw on some other late-game tweaks like rebellions within your borders within states, having to deal with some internal issues, it could make it interesting enough late-game. You can see this big empire you've built, now you have to manage it all.

Corporations were a good start for late game, but they're still a bit basic. It's basically pick the 2-3 corps that you want, and spread them like wildfire to all your cities for an instant mega-boost. Throw some complexities into that (maybe have some sort of mini-AP-like structure for each corps. Found it, you have a seat at the table of the board of governors, and they decide how to go, when to expand, whether to aggressively compete with another corporation, or whether to play nice).

Just some more random thoughts I had.

 

[CDarwin1701]

Or, and I already posted a thread about this, incorporate more economic options. Real economies don't just keep growing the more cities they control, they boom and bust, and factors like inflation and trade deficits will vary with the business cycle. Something like an ability to control interest rates at a central bank or print more currency would allow you to manage your prosperity, something modern nations have to do to avoid catastrophic crashes (watch the news lately?). It would make the whole world much more dynamic at the late game, too. Say your strongest rival suddenly experiences a market collapse and can't support his military? As it is, the only way for a civilization to weaken late-game is to be on the losing end of a war.

I like the idea about provinces too. It sort of stretches credibility to imagine that all the peoples you've conquered through the years are now suddenly happy to call themselves part of your nation. I imagine lingering nationalism and resentments would remain, and economic or political disparities would exacerbate those problems. I think it's one of the biggest weaknesses of Civ IV is that, although there are scenes from the American Civil War in the intro, such a war would be completely impossible in the game.