Overall, and if the program didn't bog-down around the middle of the first millenium (and until around 1700 A.D. when its basically frozen for 2 minutes everytime you click your mouse), its a fun concept as a "game alternative", but its poorly executed.
#1 It moves too fast. Even at the Epic Game setting, the game is predisposed to be highly annoying to any person who wants to ACTUALLY USE the war technology in any advanced sense of game strategy, and simply because the technology is outdated by the time you build it. Its semi-schizoid, in that sense, since you are always racing for the next Tech which you wont have any substantial time to use. THATS NOT FUN - its just annoying and frustrating. "A NEW TECH - OH BOY!" (The fun stops there, past that sentiment that is, btw, Mr. Sid Game Developer).
#2 A. Civ 4 partially fixed the poor combat system of its predecessors, improved the graphics, and made it slightly more 'user-friendly' in terms of its interface. The AI, with regard to the foreign country leaders, is more intelligible and logical, and allows for more foreign relations development.
B. However, the improvements were apparently at a substantial cost to the fan of Civ III. Instead of building upon the foundation of the game's previous interface, Civ IV completely changed it and took out the 'fluffy stuff'. The extraneous features shouldn't have been dropped IMO, but rather should have been developed to make it more 'fun' - and even if included only as advanced options for higher RAM memory computer gamers. For example, one feature that was rather nice was the Advisor screens. They were a fun aspect of the game. I was hoping to see them slightly more intelligent, interactive, helpful, and animated. Nope - all gone now. And, while the foreign country leaders are more 'playable', they aren't any more personable, spontaneous, nor creative past the age-old, and somewhat boring, printed-canned communication.
#3 There is NO SUPPLY in this game. If you are going to be planning the activity of armies, you need to ask yourself - "where's the SUPPLY?" Realism, of course is an element, but the real problem is that the lack of this component removes a large percentage of strategy from the table of the gamer who likes to simulate war and engage in 'war strategy'. Why they don't include it - I'll never understand. Its a simple rule - in supply = full strength - out of supply = half strength. How do you tell? Are you able to trace a path to a friendly city unobstructed by the enemy? Yes? Well then, you're supplied! It's BASIC STUFF.
#4 The rule manual is nearly worthless. Why? It reads like a commentary, and leaves you to figure most everything out on your own. If you have a question like "What does that little number mean? And, the little number after the slash?" - good luck in finding it in the manual.
#5 There is a really obvious bug. Go to war with a nation, and when available for diplomacy, contact the leader for a peace treaty, and pull up the Trade Screen. Put any or all of their techs in their trade window that you know they'd never trade, and click upon "are these terms acceptable?" (or whatever the prompt reads). They'll say "no". With their Tech still in the trade window, click "what will it take to make these terms acceptable?" (or whatever the prompt reads exactly), and you'll get a 'pop-up' saying that only one side to a confict can offer 'stuff' to make a peace treaty. Close that pop-up window and you'll be able to accept 'your offer' as it has now become their offer for peace. And, ouila, you have all their Tech.
- Yes, its pretty clear, given the freezes and the bugs, that someone didn't do their homework - or was drunk or stoned too much. And, moreover, you have to ask yourself, does the GAME designer KNOW what a fun game is? Because, it really looks like they've got lost in the formula details. Hear this - ITS NOT HALF AS FUN AS IT COULD BE (see above).
Give this comment to SOMEONE who is in a position of responsiblility - anyone - if you're able: "Give the gamer the option of using supply, and also give the gamer a 'Super Epic' game option - where the turn timer is HALVED, or mulitplied by .5 (so if a given turn in the sequence is normally 20 years, its now 10 years). IOW, the gamer is in this example playing with 1 and 2 year turns around 1 thousand A.D. Mulitiply the number of turns that it takes to get a given Tech by 1.75 early on in the Tech-World, as they are a bit slow in coming early on, and put it back to multiplied by 2.25, or so, for a time, later on in the tech - to balance it back out. Do this yet, keep the number of turns it takes to make a given game-unit roughly the same. The result is the gamer will then have a chance to actually play and develop a strategy with the tactical and technical properties inherent to a given PERIOD of warfare and culture.
Thank you, and for your ear (if its there).
#1 It moves too fast. Even at the Epic Game setting, the game is predisposed to be highly annoying to any person who wants to ACTUALLY USE the war technology in any advanced sense of game strategy, and simply because the technology is outdated by the time you build it. Its semi-schizoid, in that sense, since you are always racing for the next Tech which you wont have any substantial time to use. THATS NOT FUN - its just annoying and frustrating. "A NEW TECH - OH BOY!" (The fun stops there, past that sentiment that is, btw, Mr. Sid Game Developer).
#2 A. Civ 4 partially fixed the poor combat system of its predecessors, improved the graphics, and made it slightly more 'user-friendly' in terms of its interface. The AI, with regard to the foreign country leaders, is more intelligible and logical, and allows for more foreign relations development.
B. However, the improvements were apparently at a substantial cost to the fan of Civ III. Instead of building upon the foundation of the game's previous interface, Civ IV completely changed it and took out the 'fluffy stuff'. The extraneous features shouldn't have been dropped IMO, but rather should have been developed to make it more 'fun' - and even if included only as advanced options for higher RAM memory computer gamers. For example, one feature that was rather nice was the Advisor screens. They were a fun aspect of the game. I was hoping to see them slightly more intelligent, interactive, helpful, and animated. Nope - all gone now. And, while the foreign country leaders are more 'playable', they aren't any more personable, spontaneous, nor creative past the age-old, and somewhat boring, printed-canned communication.
#3 There is NO SUPPLY in this game. If you are going to be planning the activity of armies, you need to ask yourself - "where's the SUPPLY?" Realism, of course is an element, but the real problem is that the lack of this component removes a large percentage of strategy from the table of the gamer who likes to simulate war and engage in 'war strategy'. Why they don't include it - I'll never understand. Its a simple rule - in supply = full strength - out of supply = half strength. How do you tell? Are you able to trace a path to a friendly city unobstructed by the enemy? Yes? Well then, you're supplied! It's BASIC STUFF.
#4 The rule manual is nearly worthless. Why? It reads like a commentary, and leaves you to figure most everything out on your own. If you have a question like "What does that little number mean? And, the little number after the slash?" - good luck in finding it in the manual.
#5 There is a really obvious bug. Go to war with a nation, and when available for diplomacy, contact the leader for a peace treaty, and pull up the Trade Screen. Put any or all of their techs in their trade window that you know they'd never trade, and click upon "are these terms acceptable?" (or whatever the prompt reads). They'll say "no". With their Tech still in the trade window, click "what will it take to make these terms acceptable?" (or whatever the prompt reads exactly), and you'll get a 'pop-up' saying that only one side to a confict can offer 'stuff' to make a peace treaty. Close that pop-up window and you'll be able to accept 'your offer' as it has now become their offer for peace. And, ouila, you have all their Tech.
- Yes, its pretty clear, given the freezes and the bugs, that someone didn't do their homework - or was drunk or stoned too much. And, moreover, you have to ask yourself, does the GAME designer KNOW what a fun game is? Because, it really looks like they've got lost in the formula details. Hear this - ITS NOT HALF AS FUN AS IT COULD BE (see above).
Give this comment to SOMEONE who is in a position of responsiblility - anyone - if you're able: "Give the gamer the option of using supply, and also give the gamer a 'Super Epic' game option - where the turn timer is HALVED, or mulitplied by .5 (so if a given turn in the sequence is normally 20 years, its now 10 years). IOW, the gamer is in this example playing with 1 and 2 year turns around 1 thousand A.D. Mulitiply the number of turns that it takes to get a given Tech by 1.75 early on in the Tech-World, as they are a bit slow in coming early on, and put it back to multiplied by 2.25, or so, for a time, later on in the tech - to balance it back out. Do this yet, keep the number of turns it takes to make a given game-unit roughly the same. The result is the gamer will then have a chance to actually play and develop a strategy with the tactical and technical properties inherent to a given PERIOD of warfare and culture.
Thank you, and for your ear (if its there).
