Civ 4 - Huge Disappointment

[Snake Pliskeen]

In my opinion the only thing to change completely in this game is the combat system. I dont think to be the only one that lost a unit when statistics gave me 99.7 % to win. I always appreciated the combat system used in the game Panzer general, where each units has his peculiarities as in Civ4, but each units has a value of 10. When it faced a battle it can have some casualities but never gone lost if not under particular conditions, for example surprised with an ambush. In this way you can have heavy casualities but you dont lose the whole unit only because a random number decides this turn you have to lose even when you have 75% or more to win. Even the chance to get a leader with some special qualities for a winning unit it would be nice in that game, I would like to see it on Civ4.

 

[Arlborn]

In my opinion the only thing to change completely in this game is the combat system. I dont think to be the only one that lost a unit when statistics gave me 99.7 % to win. I always appreciated the combat system used in the game Panzer general, where each units has his peculiarities as in Civ4, but each units has a value of 10. When it faced a battle it can have some casualities but never gone lost if not under particular conditions, for example surprised with an ambush. In this way you can have heavy casualities but you dont lose the whole unit only because a random number decides this turn you have to lose even when you have 75% or more to win. Even the chance to get a leader with some special qualities for a winning unit it would be nice in that game, I would like to see it on Civ4.

In CIV4 vanilla(maybe they fixed in 1.61? Dont remember) there was a bug wehere they didnt compute First Strikes in the right way in the odds, thus making them seem weaker than trully they were. Also a bug that showed 100.1% or 0.00%(Impossible, they all have a chance of win), but this one Im almost sure they fixed in 1.61..

And as far as I know, Warlords doesent have this kind of bug, and so its all about seletive memory.. If you use more suicide units at 50% or less of win chance, you would be surprised..

And hum, the Battle system of the others CIVs were really good and perfect, right ?

 

[Astaldo711]

This is the first strategy game I've ever played. I like wargames and strategy games, but have never been very good at them. Civ4 seemed indimidating at first, but once I got the hang of it, I loved it. I owe many tired days at work due to long nights taking "just one more turn". I can't compare it to the other Civilization games, as I've never played them. Civ4 is a terrific game, IMHO.

 

[CivMonger]

Welcome to the addiction Astaldo711

 

[PieceOfMind]

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

Or even if you don't have warlords! Blake's BetterAI project is for both Civ4 and Warlords, but its thread is in the Warlords forum.

 

[Arlborn]

Or even if you don't have warlords! Balke's BetterAI project is for both Civ4 and Warlords, but its thread is in the Warlords forum.

AH ye! I never play Vanilla anymore, so I forgot this detail, thanks for remembering

 

[Giaur]

Drill is not indeed useless promotion. Just complited monarch domination game.

Drill 1) 0,5 FS
Drill 2) 1,5 FS
Drill 3) 2,5 FS
Drill 4) 4,5 FS

Never promoted before to Drill 3, so I could not calculate properly it's benefits. While you can see there is huge step from Drill3 to Drill4 and it makes a lot of difference. So you were right.

However it was Washington (charismatic) and game played in Warlords where you can get Great Military Instructors, so achieving Drill4 was very easy.

 

[froglegs]

I played CIV 3 for three years and played CIV 4 only 3 weeks. It is not as good or as interesting of a game. It does not stand the test of time. Other games were like this too. For instance, Heroes 3 was much better than Heroes 4 and Heroes 5 stunk. Warlords 2 was great but 3 was not as good and 4 was worse than awful.

 

[T.A JONES]

I played CIV 3 for three years and played CIV 4 only 3 weeks. It is not as good or as interesting of a game. It does not stand the test of time. Other games were like this too. For instance, Heroes 3 was much better than Heroes 4 and Heroes 5 stunk. Warlords 2 was great but 3 was not as good and 4 was worse than awful.

Stop it! your scarying me!!.... Cuz I know your right. Heros 3 was my first taste of turn based,(besides civ1)breathtaking, so I was amazed when I went to play the long awaited sequal. It was more pleaseing to the eye but blew chunks in every way compared to 3 in what counts, gameplay.

THen I heard heros 5 went all 3d all on us . It was suppose to blow us all away. It bombed. I want Civ4 to just be a long nightmare n' wake up to a Civ5 that puts every thing back to right.

Its not over man. We have to believe they will listen to the right people this time. they don't have to be reminded what these other guys did to their franchise. Warlords and Civ Chronicles just lost in sales to Desprate Housewives the Game.

 

[spiralx]

I played CIV 3 for three years and played CIV 4 only 3 weeks. It is not as good or as interesting of a game. It does not stand the test of time. Other games were like this too. For instance, Heroes 3 was much better than Heroes 4 and Heroes 5 stunk. Warlords 2 was great but 3 was not as good and 4 was worse than awful.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If you've only played CIV for 3 weeks, then you can't really state that it "does not stand the test of time" surely?

Personally I hated CIII, CIV has bought back that feeling of excitement to the series.

 

[motherboard1]

Personally I cant see how his statement is self contradicting. But anyway

For a more simplified approach to a new combat system, this is what I would like to see, tell me what you think.

You know when you select 4 cannons and tell them to bombard a city, and they do so simultaneously? Well I would like to see combat between units happen simultaneously.

For example, I select 4 units of warriors from my stack, and order them to attack the enemies warriors. If the enemy stack has 4 or more units, then the enemy stack should be forced to defend against all 4 of my warriors at once, each warrior pairing off against another, for a big brawl.

it would look better, it requires much less micro management, it lets you resolve battles faster, and sounds easy to impliment. I personally dont like the 1 unit at a time thing at all.

 

[mrt144]

I never played Civ III. I went straight from SMAC to Civ IV and really enjoy the aspects of SMAC that made it into Civ IV. CIV II really was just too much of a straightforward exercize every game after a while. The thing that I like about Civ IV is that it introduces some more opportunity cost ideas and tough decisions.

 

[Dirk1302]

I think Civ IV is far and away the best till now.The developers got most of the
features right and there are not much exploits. The only aspect of the game i really don't like is the vassal system but this can be turned off.

I liked Civ I and II much more than Civ III with it's endless research times in the early and middle game and after that the exploitive tech trading being in the tech trade screen for 90% of the time. One aspect of Civ III made me keep playing it, it is a really difficult game on Demigod and Deity (inpossible on sid). Civ II was to easy.

 

[Chieftess]

I think Civ IV is far and away the best till now.The developers got most of the
features right and there are not much exploits. The only aspect of the game i really don't like is the vassal system but this can be turned off.

I liked Civ I and II much more than Civ III with it's endless research times in the early and middle game and after that the exploitive tech trading being in the tech trade screen for 90% of the time. One aspect of Civ III made me keep playing it, it is a really difficult game on Demigod and Deity (inpossible on sid). Civ II was to easy.

I actually like the vassal system - kind of like the Mutual Protection Pacts, but not so complex that you can touch off a free-for-all like you could in Civ3.

 

[gnome]

This is the first time they've simplified the combat system and I liked the result--the unified strength score. I always thought it was kind of lame that a tough-looking spear unit couldn't organize into a phalanx and ATTACK in strength, as they could historically. Even a unit used "defensively" mainly does so by attacking the opponent as they move in... so it made more sense

The specialized modifiers work well too--you can go for combat +1, or get a bigger bonus if you're able to plan ahead enough to decide how to specialize the unit.

 

[Scandinavians]

I originally wasn't going to get Civ 4 (decided to stick with Civ 3 and get Conquests), but when I got my new GeForce 7800 GS OC, I wanted another thing to make good use of my video card for. Plus I've heard good things about the modability.

For me, Civilization III is harder, yet feels more strategy-ish (and has way more easter eggs and humorous things). Civilization IV feels easier to me, but some things which I can't quite put my finger on make it a good game (though one thing is that they fixed the spearman vs tank problem).

I do miss several elements of Civ3, though. Some of these:
-Leaders seemed to have more varied dialog in Civ 3 (each leader had their own unique sayings too)
-The advisor system seemed better then (and I miss the advisors actually being people, too)
-The multiplayer in Civ 3, although buggy in PTW, seemed to have more variety (game filters and things)
-The modern music in Civ 3 (I'm one of few people who liked it)
-...and various other little bells and whistles.

 

[Winston Hughes]

To me, cIV did exactly the right thing with regards to its predecessors: it changed some of the game dynamics in such a way as to make it a very different playing experience, whilst retaining the general flavour of the series.

I've loved every one of the civ games, but I do tend to get bored with doing the same old thing, over and over (a problem which is easily addressed with mods).

So, I want every new version to throw out a load of old features, throw in a load of new ones, and create a different balance between its various parts, rather than treating it as some kind of 'enhanced graphics plus a few extra features' add-on. Otherwise, I'd just play the unmodded game a handful of times, get bored, and move straight onto the mods. As it is, I've yet to touch any of the mods for cIV, having enjoyed more than six months of almost continual 'just... one... more... turn...'.

 

[Clovis]

I think the combat system is a joke, also there are too many choices for troops (never thought id say that) and way too many choices for city buildings and wonders.

why too many is a bad thing, well for one it might scare off someone who is new to the game, having to read about all those diffrent buildings and then figuring out which one is the best for this particular city, isnt exactly fun.

Figuring things out is what I enjoy about the game. The more control I have and the more options, the better. I like, slow, turn-based strategy. Inductive logic rules!

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Figuring things out is what I enjoy about the game. The more control I have and the more options, the better. I like, slow, turn-based strategy. Inductive logic rules!

Indeed. Use your brain. It's not hard. And if it's easy, give Blake's Better AI mod a shot...

 

[Shaihulud]

I bought it long after it was out, from the comment of most people i was abit disappointed, but still i got the game. I would prefer it to be better of course, CIV 2 was a major improvement over CIV 1, CIV 3 was also an improvement over its predecessor, but imo CIV 4 is not that great an improvement, but diehard fans like me will buy it anyway. I find myself going back to SMACX more often than not, its my favourite game among this genre.