Civ 4 - Huge Disappointment

[GoodGame]

Thats because it took Windows 3.1 on a 486 to run Civ1, which I still have, and cost me $189 to upgrade the RAM to 4Mb.

I can't fathom that unless you did it like in 1987.
I just upgraded to 2 GB for about that much.

 

[Bastian-Bux]

The problem might be to get RAM that old and still working. ^^ And anything that is a problem, tends to be costly.

 

[LuckyAC]

I was happily playing Civ III until last month, then I went to visit someone who has Civ 4 for a few weeks and played a lot. Unfortunately, Civ IV can't run on my computer, so now that I am home, I can't play it. Even worse, now that I have played Civ IV, I can't bear Civ III, so I have nothing at all to play

 

[Antilogic]

Religion I don't care for. I will just say I actually think the game would be better balanced if they just removed it than leave it as it is now and leave it at that. Great People and civics I do like and was a step in a positive direction. The interface seems bland and unuseful alot to me personally. The advisor screens in all previous versions were more useful than 4's.

The militay advisor is so worthless it is a crying shame. I seriously have no clue who thought that was a good idea. I want the civ3 military advisor back myself.
The domestic advisor is way too simplified and offers no real overview beyond basics of you cities and you cant even select a city from the advisor screen to cut to that city as we used to be able to do.
Then the financial advisor gives you no real record of the budget. It is almost as if the numbers just come out of nowhere and it is the responsibility of the player to track down the budget themselves to see what all of these values are coming from. Inflation gives no warning and just juts out at you unless you are an extreme micromanager and count turns and such. The whole financial advisor screen just seems to sum everything up so basically that there is no real reason to look at it to try and figure out where the money is being lost really. The players had to actually test a bunch of city placement in WB to find out hw the budget defines city maintenance when this could have been included into the financial advisor. I could go into this more but the finacial advisor seems to have went on long enough, hehe. Basically, the financial advisor offers no help. This is probably why so many new people post about a how their games end up forming economic blackholes and they have no clue how to fix it. And no one really knows how to get in and figure out where they messed up because there is no real good way to look at it. The answer is just "build more cottages" or "found a religion". No one ever says "Look at your financial advisor and see where your money is going" because we all know that darn advisor isn't doing squat for the player.

I don't mean any of this as a personal attact on anyone's view on the game... even though I quoted you Antilogic. Alot of people like the new simplified system and that's cool. You just brought up some things I figured I would add to in light of the discussion. I am not a heavy micromanager myself but I think too many things are hidden behind the curtain this time around and I think it hurts the game more than it helps. Anyways, there is some more to add to this little thread.

I'm only quoting a few of your points here...

But I'm surprised about your comments on the religion--I thought that was one of the better new features of Civ4. It adds a little flavor in terms of different cultures and diplomacy--holy wars can be declared for differences in religion, as well as the classic war for territory from a neighbor, irregardless of religion.

I'm not going to fight you on the advisers--I too am somewhat disappointed with how they are implemented, but there are several mods out there that will alter those screens. That strikes me as a minor problem.

Another thing I didn't mention was the AI: it's so nice having an AI that will actually use artillery on the offense. That was a crying shame in the last incarnation of Civ. Also, I enjoy the greater differences in the AI personalities. Until Civ4, I always felt there were two AI phenotypes, essentially: the warmonger, and the builder. All leaders fell somewhere on a spectrum between fighters and builders. But now, we have different kinds of warmongers, like the crazy Montezuma, the crusader Isabella, and the bullies like Alexander. And, there are more varieties amongst the more peaceful players as well. I believe one of the crowning achievements of Civ4 was bringing more varied AI personalities to the board.

 

[T.A JONES]

Another thing I didn't mention was the AI: it's so nice having an AI that will actually use artillery on the offense. That was a crying shame in the last incarnation of Civ.

Hey what they lose in offensive capabilitys over Civ4 they make up in counter seige abilties. - to which CIv4 has no real answer but to kill the old Navel bombardment system aswell-And I liked that part

Remeber they group in AI cities in mass or muliple(helps whos modding ) and can hit your stack with a barrage while you can't do a dam thing to em!

Its worse for a unit that dosn't kill the defender and has to run away. The more turns it takes to seize the more You keep on getting shot at from the artilary positions that reamin untouchable till the last man gaurding the town falls dead. Now what happens when thers lots of artillary and lots of defenders cooped up in a Big ass city on a hill, and their all made up with the highest defending class available?... its a bloody awful mess I tell you!.

Still Its a advantage over Civ4 in added realism. I control output of artys(I know Im handcuffing myself--I was told so!) but its really more enjoyable. They have a option for capping Armys (another AI cripler) so you just have to use common sence with the artillary...Even still if you wanna play arty blood fest, the game still requires you to be able to build them in mass, an opps! you decided to raise the sheild cost a lil.(so only real production capitals can build em at any rate).. it encourages the building up of cities and if you limit army production, there is where your challange begins, bringing them all to the front.

 

[Saint Sarai]

I was happily playing Civ III until last month, then I went to visit someone who has Civ 4 for a few weeks and played a lot. Unfortunately, Civ IV can't run on my computer, so now that I am home, I can't play it. Even worse, now that I have played Civ IV, I can't bear Civ III, so I have nothing at all to play

The more I play, the more I like Civ 4. I got my copy for Christmas from my brother and Warlords from my mom.

That's pretty harsh though, I think Civ 3 is better than not playing Civ at all. Civ 4 won't play on my laptop, so when I travel, I play Civ 3 while waiting for my delayed flight to take off, (not again.) Time to replace the laptop.

 

[Landmonitor]

To really play Civ 4 on a laptop, you need a 10 lb monster. I would try and get at least a Go 7600 otherwise your map will be choppy.

 

[Antilogic]

Hey what they lose in offensive capabilitys over Civ4 they make up in counter seige abilties. - to which CIv4 has no real answer but to kill the old Navel bombardment system aswell-And I liked that part

I am in preference of the old bombardment system as well...or at least an option to do either for artillery units. It would make navies more useful for taking coastal cities, to be able to barrage units and soften up the defenses.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Wow, I'm the exact opposite. I got tired of how tedious Civ3 was with worker management, and the lack of built-in stack management. I tried to find ways to win the game quicker just so I wouldn't have to clean up pollution in the modern age (ugh...), and I avoided anything larger than a Standard map like the plague.

I completely agree. In Civ III, the way you had you keep cleaning up pollution in the late game was a nightmare, not to mention the time lags due to micromanagement. And then there was the mad rush to build as many cities as possible, and many of the cities were so far away from the capital that all their shields except one were eaten up by corruption. You had to build airplanes and crash them there to get things built at all. Civ III had a lot of excellent new ideas that were handled badly. Civ IV tweaked things so that they became enjoyable.

However, I still dislike the way you are expected to expand and fill the entire map. It's ridiculous when your competitors land a settler to build a city on an arctic tile which does not have a single neighbouring resource to recommend it. Bring on minor civs! At some point, they should appear, and at some later point they should become impossible to assimilate. You might have an bility to turn them into vassals or minor allies that count towards a domination or conquest victory, or simply exclude them in the computation for domination/conquest victories.

 

[Giaur]

Hail Drill 4!

Hail Scout promotions!

PS: Hail City Defend!


And I agree with most people who dont agree with the original post.

City Defend negates Drill when talking about archery units, so you have to choose: Drill or City Defend, not both.

So basically I understood from previous post, that Drill helps avoiding Damage. Well ... I do this by another way ... I always keep some promotions ... never promote immediately.

P.S. Drill may be useful on lower difficulties, that's my opinion.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

The domestic advisor is way too simplified and offers no real overview beyond basics of you cities and you cant even select a city from the advisor screen to cut to that city as we used to be able to do.

I agree. Another thing they should bring back is the function where you can ask where a certain city is. You know, the "Where the heck is...?" If you had seen the city or got a map of its area, then you were automatically brought to that part of the map.
Also, I am annoyed by the way the game automatically cuts to the next active unit when you want to do something additional where you were. In all previous versions of Civ, you weren't suddenly moved somehwere else as soon as you had given one unit its instructions.

 

[motherboard1]

I payed $60 for this game, so I think Iv bought the right to speak my mind honestly, Sorry to all you Civ fanatics

Iv only played through 4 games, then I had to take a break for a week, actually havent played it since, the game just became totally boreing for me, and multiplayer seems pretty bad

So at this point I have to admit that the game has been quite a dissapointment to me as well, it was much more in my imagination than it turned out to be after playing it.

But I fully intend to get back into it, I payed $60 bucks for this game, so Ill find a way to like it yet, its just hard when so many things get to you. Combat is a boreing game of attrition (I would have atleast given all units "Chance to Withdraw"). War is fun, but only the planning and initial execution, not the combat.
Nukes were a big turn off factor for me, bomb shelters are something peaple dig in their back yard, not something that shields an entire city from a nuclear blast. bomb shelters or no, a nuclear strike on a city should be catastrophic, and a nuclear exchange between nations should be apocalyptic. So ya, watching my nukes kill off only 10 % of a targetted cities populations and barely phase all Units inside, makeing me feel an entire Nuclear arsenal was a waste of time, that was a big killer for me.

 

[motherboard1]

I agree. Another thing they should bring back is the function where you can ask where a certain city is. You know, the "Where the heck is...?" If you had seen the city or got a map of its area, then you were automatically brought to that part of the map.
Also, I am annoyed by the way the game automatically cuts to the next active unit when you want to do something additional where you were. In all previous versions of Civ, you weren't suddenly moved somehwere else as soon as you had given one unit its instructions.

you can turn off "auto unit cycling" in options, but it still auto cycles upon "end turn" unfortunatly, but its still a big releif so go take care of that right away (should be default in my opinion)

 

[Arlborn]

City Defend negates Drill when talking about archery units, so you have to choose: Drill or City Defend, not both.

So basically I understood from previous post, that Drill helps avoiding Damage. Well ... I do this by another way ... I always keep some promotions ... never promote immediately.

P.S. Drill may be useful on lower difficulties, that's my opinion.

I always get a mix of city garison and drill units to defend ^^ ANd I always have some units non-promoted walking around in case I need a promotion that I normally dont use

And you said yourself, you never proote immediatelly..If Combat > others, why not promote to combat imediatelly ?

PS(dotdot): I play on Price-monarch on normal CIV and noble-price on Blake's AI. Prob lower level to most warmonggers

 

[King Flevance]

But I'm surprised about your comments on the religion--I thought that was one of the better new features of Civ4. It adds a little flavor in terms of different cultures and diplomacy--holy wars can be declared for differences in religion, as well as the classic war for territory from a neighbor, irregardless of religion.

Yeah, maybe my tastes are out of the ordinary. Alot of people like religion. I personally don't like the religions being tied to the tech tree for one. That makes no sense to me. I am not big on the extra income and free ability to look in enemy territories. There are some Arabs here in Kansas City but doesn't mean they get to have a free pass into the government buildings and army bases here.
As for the Holy Wars, I only see these fought by the AI and alot of times I see the AI overlook good potential allies because of religion. The AI overvalues religion too much and it makes them do some very foolish things.

Until Civ4, I always felt there were two AI phenotypes, essentially: the warmonger, and the builder. All leaders fell somewhere on a spectrum between fighters and builders. But now, we have different kinds of warmongers, like the crazy Montezuma, the crusader Isabella, and the bullies like Alexander. And, there are more varieties amongst the more peaceful players as well. I believe one of the crowning achievements of Civ4 was bringing more varied AI personalities to the board.

I somewhat agree with you about the personalities but what I find is you still have 2 groups of personalities. Those that will backstab you, and those that won't. Which could be classified as 'warmonger' and 'builder/peacenik'. I am very happy with the idea of the AI modifiers being shown. I just think a few values are messed up.

Nukes were a big turn off factor for me, bomb shelters are something peaple dig in their back yard, not something that shields an entire city from a nuclear blast. bomb shelters or no, a nuclear strike on a city should be catastrophic, and a nuclear exchange between nations should be apocalyptic. So ya, watching my nukes kill off only 10 % of a targetted cities populations and barely phase all Units inside, makeing me feel an entire Nuclear arsenal was a waste of time, that was a big killer for me.

I feel the same way about nukes. They are so expensive and then they are so very worthless.

 

[ChinaBlue]

The AI overvalues religion too much and it makes them do some very foolish things.

At least the developers did a good job in this regard to make AI act like human beings.

 

[Moxxa]

This discussion comes up so often.

All I have to say is if you don't give Civ 4 a chance because its not like the other civ games, you're missing out. Play whatever games you like the most, but IMO, Civ 4 is far superior to the others in the series. They're all good games, but they hardly even compare to Civ 4.

 

[Giaur]

I always get a mix of city garison and drill units to defend ^^ ANd I always have some units non-promoted walking around in case I need a promotion that I normally dont use

And you said yourself, you never proote immediatelly..If Combat > others, why not promote to combat imediatelly ?

PS(dotdot): I play on Price-monarch on normal CIV and noble-price on Blake's AI. Prob lower level to most warmonggers

For me everything lower than deity means easy. However I found myself a warmonger and when talking bout winning I meant conquest, which is for me the easiest way and most natural way to win.

I often choose Shock, Cover, Pinch, Formation but for me these are only improved Combat. There is to few unique promotions like Comando.

P.S. What's Blake's AI?
P.S.S. Footmen is for me main force and it gains terrain bonuses, so promoting to Combat immediately is not always neccessary. I usually leave 1/3-1/2 units unpromoted

 

[Arlborn]

For me everything lower than deity means easy. However I found myself a warmonger and when talking bout winning I meant conquest, which is for me the easiest way and most natural way to win.

I often choose Shock, Cover, Pinch, Formation but for me these are only improved Combat. There is to few unique promotions like Comando.

P.S. What's Blake's AI?
P.S.S. Footmen is for me main force and it gains terrain bonuses, so promoting to Combat immediately is not always neccessary. I usually leave 1/3-1/2 units unpromoted

Huge PS(big dots):


I dont like much warmongging, its kinda dull, I prefer Cultural victories with lots of diplomacy and defensive/sneak wars. So higher levels for me focuses too much in military

Do you have Warlords? If yes, go to Warlords section and look for the thread 'Better AI.', kinda hard to dont find, specially because it has almost 100 pages

 

[T.A JONES]

I completely agree. In Civ III, the way you had you keep cleaning up pollution in the late game was a nightmare, not to mention the time lags due to micromanagement.

Wow if it was such a nightmare Im wondering why you just didn't turn it off
Hey if you never knew the option menu had a little window where you could raise or lower the amount of pollution a improvment gave. All you do is set the facilty to 0. There done!

Well what about Population polution you say? Good question you still got the 'mass trasit station' just add a sewer and a park done. you have won the battle with pollution but don't expect it to be that easy. The parks and sewers should come at high maintenece cost so it will tame you wad o cash a bit .(just a opinion). See Civ3 is flawless all the problems can be fixed to make a more realistic better game then in the beginning!, but heres the thing, Its much easier to play around with small things then CIv4


Oh yes the settler rush. Think of this like the opening ceramony in the game called RISK, but its more complex cauz the first few city locations you plop down help determine how many extra peices you can add on the board over your opponent. Its all very fun my son think of it like draft day and your trying to get the star player whos undervalued on your team.

Same with movin troops...included is City rally point and continental rally point. this distinguishs seprate army forming logistical commands.What I mean is now your Summoning seprate groups at two or more fronts without ever giving a single unit an seprate order.

Once The forces have stacked high enough, name the first unit in the pile 1st Regiment(or something) then move them all along him as leader, and let the next bunch pile up. The continoius flow of the contintal rally point source is contrived from any city pumping units at the time., so you can still build improvemnts at your leisure while a formable army is in the making.

Useing the stack moving button. Now Multi divisions are set up like natinal armys! and one push of the button sends them to war at seprate fronts. Whats so hard. OK why is this so bad and CIv4 better?