CIV 4 - "Where's the Beef?" a Meat and Potatoes take on the game

[Stonewall80]

I am not sure you get it Nuh Uh, CIV is not a Wargame, its a Civilisation game. War is just one tool is your armoury, there is culture, religion, diplomacy, technology etc. So they are not going to build a war simulator they are building a total civilisation simulator.

Personally I think they have covered supply problems in the abstract form.
- Slow healing in enemy lands.
- Culture bonus (for defence) for cities
- No use of enemy transportation, (representing slower movement in enemy land).

It is a game that deals in abstract notions. In the same way Axemen could beat a tank, the game deals in abstract notions history. Its not a wargame, go back to HOI2 for that sort of game.

For example if you wanted an accurate war game, you would need incorporate factors, like morale, (eg. constant bombing reduces morale), flanking, superior leadership, training, experience levels, needing to rest troops to prevent combat stress problems.

Though I do agree that research does go too fast, all this game needs in my view is to make techs maybe 150% or double to cost of techs, and get rid of the time limit and it would be where I would want it.

Also it would make the choices at the start more interesting, because the wrong choice could slow you down for a long time.

Stonewall

 

[Nuh Uh]

(CiviliZation game) Oh, I get it, Jackson. You have the groupie overly possessive mentality, and you have the embarassed design director's territorial mentality combined to form an impasse of irrelevant and distractive argument. As a Civilization game, warfare is an aspect, and the notion of pigeon-holing it as this or that type of game to prevent improvements to its strategic potential, is not only fractious in terms of logic, but its unprogressive and deceptive. A Civilization or CULTURAL game is not by definition unrealistic, but rather one that provides a variety of elements outside the traditional wargame, and which is focused on that one venue. The only problem people have is with something new, and as such, Advanced Game features allow for a change's incorporation. Once incorporated, the community adjusts to it, and the flimsy logic of a few that lead the pack on a frolic of superstition and comparatively inferior play environments, evolves.

 

[Nuh Uh]

On that notion of evolution. One thing that I'm excited to see is the incorporation of Religion. I haven't figured it out yet - how it works - but that is probably the one new feature of the game that is remarkable. Very clever, and I hope I can bring myself to play the game soon so as to explore its potential as a focused venue for play.

 

[microbe]

My biggest complaint (aside from actual bugs) is that CIV4 feels like RaR in CIV3 plus some eye candies. There are a lot of things in common: fast moving techs (no min turns), lots of resources without market happiness multiplier, slow expansion, wonders (a lot of names are the same, the concept of requiring certain buildings before allowing building the wonder), and so on.

 

[zyphyr]

Lets take this sentence by sentence, and put them into simple terms.

(CiviliZation game)

Implied spelling flame. 99% of the time, only used by those who have lost the arguement and know it but aren't willing to give up. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume you are in the 1%.

Oh, I get it, Jackson.

Nothing to comment on here, just identification of who you are replying to.

You have the groupie overly possessive mentality, and you have the embarassed design director's territorial mentality combined to form an impasse of irrelevant and distractive argument.

Translation : 'You like the game as it is, so you don't want it changed. As such your opinion doesn't count.' Very nice of you.

As a Civilization game, warfare is an aspect, and the notion of pigeon-holing it as this or that type of game to prevent improvements to its strategic potential, is not only fractious in terms of logic, but its unprogressive and deceptive.

This one is a rather bizzare sentence. I am having trouble with the phrase "fractious in terms of logic". In particular I am failing to see that it contains any meaningful content, given that fractious means "cranky, unruly, easily irritated, upredictable, or resistant to authority" (depending on what dictionary you chose to use). So, translation :'I am going to throw out some big words that I really don't understand, and that I hope nobody else does, to confuse the issue'. Actually, I think that translation can apply to the post as a whole.

A Civilization or CULTURAL game is not by definition unrealistic, but rather one that provides a variety of elements outside the traditional wargame, and which is focused on that one venue.

Doesn't really say much of anything, but nothing inherently wrong with it. Translation : 'Civ games cover many aspects of civilizations'

The only problem people have is with something new, and as such, Advanced Game features allow for a change's incorporation.

Trnaslation: 'The only reason to not want this is a fear of new things'

Once incorporated, the community adjusts to it, and the flimsy logic of a few that lead the pack on a frolic of superstition and comparatively inferior play environments, evolves.

Translation: 'Trust me, this will make the game better and only a fool would disagree'.

Oh, and on a silghtly different note.. I am a Wargamer and have been for about 20 years. I play in many different scales (Strategic, Operational, Skirmish, etc). I most certainly do not want supply rules in Civ. As such, your assertion that all wargamers do in fact want them here is inherently false.

 

[ThERat]

CIV4 feels like RaR in CIV3 plus some eye candies

Last weekend, being bored waiting for Civ4 to finally arrive here, I downloaded and played Rhye's Civ-mod and those thoughts came to my mind too.

There, settlers are extremely hard to create. So, it sounds valid, but after a while RaR showed serious flaws as well. For me as a warmonger, I love to put up a good fight with the AI and not use units which once reaching the front are obsolete already...Looking at the string of SG's running, I find none of them captivating. I mean most of them are downright boring if one takes away the novelty factor of a new game.

 

[Djc]

Yeah, I hate that, too - DJCK. I capitalize words, because in typing, it allows me better FOCUS for relaying and conveying the substance of the post.

(Oh - and sometimes for the reader, too...)

OK, you get bonus points for turning my screenname around on me and avoiding the Mod's wrath at the same time. I was being dickish, and I apologize. Peace?

 

[Nuh Uh]

I need glasses, DJC - I actually thought your name was Dick - but left the K to be coy. I don't care about winning arguments. I don't mind losing in proving a point if there is a logical reason behind it. That said, you have these MORONS in every forum who have to crap all over your thread and when they can't win in terms of logic they start harassing you so they can hopefully turn it into a flamer thread. Take Zyphyr for example - he's flaming. He's determined to try to ruin the thread with the 'flamer label' and attack the poster just because he doesn't like the posters personality (I CARE - not). But, he's going to get out his magnifying glass and turn the direction of the post back to NONSENSE to see if he can put my posts into that flame context. That's flaming by intention - its harassment. Get a life.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Anyway, peace - man. Later.

 

[Djc]

That said, you have these MORONS in every forum who have to crap all over your thread and when they can't win in terms of logic they start harassing you so they can hopefully turn it into a flamer thread.

True, there are morons everywhere. Sometimes, though, people get upset for no particular reason, and it ends up making everyone else upset at them. I think everyone needs to take a few deep breaths, and remember that this is a game. I wouldn't have designed Civ with a supply-line model, but perhaps it would add some extra depth to warfare. People who don't like the idea should say so, but if we keep b*tching at each other for no reason the mods will ban our IPs and tell Firaxis never to send us another game as long as we live and upload nasty German fetish pornography adware onto our computers. Yes they will. Fear the mods.

 

[Nuh Uh]

LOL. Dude - I'm just yamming the way I normally talk. Combine my natural saracastic air with BEING RIGHT and people get mad. To heck with them. I can take it. You don't see me running off to mommy to say "WAAH - so and so hurt my feelings!" LOL. Big Mommy and Daddy Mod, if cogent, would say, "well, little kid, don't play with so an so." Problem is, the morons I'm referring to like to ***** and whine and cause problems for members, and do it while pretending to be the great peace keeper and rock of civility. NAUSEATING.

 

[Nuh Uh]

For example if you wanted an accurate war game, you would need incorporate factors, like morale, (eg. constant bombing reduces morale), flanking, superior leadership, training, experience levels, needing to rest troops to prevent combat stress problems.


Stonewall

These are interesting points and perhaps some of which could be successfully incorporated providing greater enjoyment and while with low micromanagment.

Although, my point is not 'accuracy' per se, nor addressing every feature of real life battle so as to simulate a war in a wargame feature. Reason being, if the modifications incorporated produce micromanagment exhaustion in the gamer, the game ceases to be enjoyable. I believe, as you pointed out, the speed of the game causes this phenomenon in the gamer's experience with regard to the Tech feature itself. My point is to provide a base threshold of those realistic characteristics, that are fundamental principles of warfare, that greatly ramp up the strategic qualities and potential of a game. Supply is so simple and overall, so automated given the AI, and given its ability to improve the strategic enjoyability of a game, its mandatory - at least as an option.

 

[zeeter]

Are you wanting to take a business course? Because not only would it be MORE FUN to many people (a fact that most with their heads up their bottoms are oblivious to), but it would be more profitable, and in business terms, that makes smart strategy - using the versatility of the product to tap into other venues of the same market (I should be getting paid for this...).

How is it more profitable to push your marketing towards the ten percent that MAY want the feature and in effect alienate the 90% who don't want this much detail in the game? I've already explained why the Civ series is so popular. Run a Civilization without having to deal with the minor bull.

I'm not sure what you expected by coming in here. It seems that most of the people responding are not interested in your idea. I gave you my reasons in gaming terms and marketing terms, yet you seem to want to belittle anyone who disagrees with your assumption instead of listening to what we have to say. Even hardcore wargamers are against this notion in Civ.

It's not fear of something new, or fear of change. It's that we don't want to deal with it. This isn't adding a new concept, like religion. This is adding more attention to detail that most of us are not interested in. We like the game as it is, without any supply issues.

And they have addressed supply, as noted by several people here ad nausium. You choose to ignore these valid points and continue to assume that you are smarter than everyone else and that we should just listen to you and agree with your posts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We all respect and realize that you are entitled to yours. Please provide that same respect to those of us who have disagreed. Nobody has attacked your original idea with insults or namecalling. Only in your followup posts have people argued using the same tactics that you have.

Most of us have given you very valid reasons why this should not be implemented, even as an option. In summary of those reasons: alienating the core market group of casual wargamers and city builders, likely unwillingness for for Firaxis to spend time and resources on a feature that only "10%" of the gaming community would be interested in (10% being thus far unproven), and continuing to state that this is a wargame, which it is not, although it may be played as such on a more limited scale.

Furthermore, you are creating a separatist group of "10%" of the people who play multiplayer where this option would most certainly want to be included. Personally I have not played multiplayer, so I don't know if turning options on or off is viable.

Based on your low number of total posts when starting this thread I have assumed that you are a newby, and so have reacted using civility when you have. However you continue to be arrrogant in your beliefs when people disagree. Don't take it personal. We just disagree. I have yet to see a valid reason supported by facts that you didn't make up as to why people would want the features you want to add.

I even agreed with the rest of your original post, except for the diplomacy bug. While it is a bug, if you know it's a bug and take advantage of it then that turns it into an exploit. Certainly something that should be fixed, but one that you can work around. Otherwise it can be considered cheating.

 

[Nuh Uh]

If you want to respect my "opinion", that's fine. My opinion is that you must be really bored, and that I find you to be argumentative for the sake of argument. Moreover, you strike me as someone who rambles on without clarity and with little direction. Don't take that personally. I have found from experience that 90% of the people in the world have no clue what they are talking about, and adhere to 'an idea' with little self-awareness concerning its merit. Moreover, I have found from experience, that people defend their 'ideas' regardless of whether they are right or wrong, You fall into that category on this occasion IMO. Reason: I have already with logic, refuted every position you have clung to by your finger tips regarding the issue of supply, thus your recalcitrance in light of reason makes it very clear that you have little interest in the issue, and that your proclivity is out of ignorance and reason built upon repetition of behavior alone. But, again, this thread wasn't and isn't about opinions. My focus is the system of Civ itself, and how that plays out, regardless of who is 10% of the population; which by the way, is a very large percentage, especially with regard to business. But, opinions have nothing to do with it, AND you expressed your opinion like a broken record. That serves no purpose here, other than taking up space. So, please respect my opinion that you find somewhere else to balk, because I have no ear for it. I suggest that you find somewhere else to express your "opinion" concerning keeping Civ, what is IMO, a dull and uncreative game in the area of warfare.

Thanks,
Martin

 

[Volstag]

It amazes me how quickly people forget the problems of the previous iterations. To this original poster:

The advisor screens are still there.
Supply has never been in Civ... why did you expect it now?
The length of the game can be easily modded.

IMO, the game is just as good, if not better, than Civ III.

 

[zeeter]

First response. You bring up supply. Many people suggest that this might be a bad idea and they'd rather not see it in the game. You insult those people and belittle their intelligence. How does that make the rest of the people here argumentive? Again - when you have acted in a civil manner many others of us have in response. If you had said, "it could be an option" without the negativity, then fine. Leave well enough alone. But when you add in the negativity people feel an obligation to respond in kind.

 

[zeeter]

Second response. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your post is being argumentive? Are you the only civ player? Are you the only person who's opinions of the game matter? This is a bulletin board. As such people express their opinions. We keep those opinions in a civil tone. Occasionally the debates become heated. However they typically consist of people discussing the game and using historical references in order to exemplify why certain aspects of the game are missing. They typically do not consist of name calling and insults. Most of us are above that.

 

[zeeter]

Third response. Just because you made this thread does not give you dictatorial reign over it. You cannot simply make a thread and assume that everyone who responds will agree with your posts. If you do not like my responses - most of which have been civil, then do not respond to them, and I will act in kind. Of course, if you continue to maintain this tone with me and others in this thread whom you have ridiculed without reason, I will of course feel the need to again take up my issues regarding this matter.

 

[Nuh Uh]

Sure. You have the right, until deemed otherwise by a moderator, to come to my thread and ramble on AD NAUSEAM. The line is drawn when it becomes clear your only motivation is to be irritating. You are, by your own admittal, motivated to 'defend your integrity', but if you had any, you'd get a sense of humor and take it with a grain of salt. So, rock on, dude, and chill. 'Kay?

 

[dh_epic]

#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,

Even at normal speeds, I've played many games where I've had ancient (horse archers, swords, and spears), middle (knights and muskets), and modern (rifles and beyond) wars for extended periods of time.

The difference is you no longer have the time to build all the wonders, all the buildings, and fight a war of conquest. You have to get to these military technologies first, and REALLY prepare for war.

#3 There is NO SUPPLY in this game.

Supply is in the game as maintainance. Units cost more when they're 'away'. It's also harder to heal in enemy territory. I think there's LOTS of strategy revolving around this. The game is a huge improvement on Civ 3, where war is cheap, easy, and a question of who has more troops. This maintainance cost is key to making war more meaningful, instead of an afterthought.

#2 ... For example, one feature that was rather nice was the Advisor screens.

#4 The rule manual is nearly worthless.

#5 There is a really obvious bug.

I definitely agree here. I think bugs can't be helped to some degree, and I think they rushed the game. I feel like they should have taken longer to really make the game bug free. Maybe run a beta test with some actual users with a variety of systems and a variety of skill levels to really understand what needs to be done.

Civ 4, to me, still comes out around Christmas -- despite the fact that we've been playing it for more than a week. But be patient -- Christmas is around the corner.


WAR ADVICE

My advice to you, for war, is to really plan ahead. In what age are you going to forego some of those major wonders and pass up some of those major techs, and shift all your gears towards war? And how the heck are you going to pay for it?

Timing and maintainance are much more delicate. That's the genius of Civ 4.

In the ancient age, this means I go to horse archers before anything else. It also means not taking on the burden of new settlements, because it will choke your economy.

In the iron age, it means that I either have to beeline for construction (catapults and elephants) -- and that's only if I see I have ivory right at the start! Otherwise, you have to think ahead.

Or I beeline to guilds for the late medieval era (knights, crossbows, and gunpowder around the corner). I don't even come CLOSE to optics (exploration), music (wonders), or divine right (religion) until after.

In the industrial age, it means the exact opposite. Ignore guilds, feudalism, and machinery, and go for music, nationalism, and military tradition.

War is no longer an after thought. You have to think ahead, and mobilize your entire economy for war when the time approaches. You can't wage constant war, nor can you have only a few cities participating. Wars must be focused.