Civ4 has lost the "one more turn" status!

[Aussie_Lurker]

I could ask the same of you, Carewolf, because its sounding like you are playing Civ3-not Civ4. I have rarely seen AI civs being more than cautious with each other at the start of the game-and the exceptions to this are few and far between. As I said, I have also seen a number of AI vs AI wars occur, and equally seen AI's be good friends as well. I have managed to maintain good relations with civs without the need to resort to anything except being sensible-a willingness to enter into resource and tech trades, attempting to change their civics or religion et al (oh, and I have managed to get many civs to adopt a new civic and/or religion-though it is VERY hard to do the latter if the civ in question has a religion that IT founded.) What I think is that you are seeing only what you want to believe about the AI's-a common tendancy if you are not doing well.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[fishlore]

I guess when I actually get into the game and start playing, "one more turn" effects me a bit. The problem for me at this point is even wanting to boot up the game. I like the game and everything, I don't have any performance problems, but I never have the urge to play so badly that I just have to drop what I'm doing and start up a game. I probably haven't played for a week and I don't miss it at all. Civ 3 was kind of the same way. I'd go months and months between games then all of a sudden I'd start one up and play for three days straight and then put it down for many months again.

Hopefully I get the urge to play again someday.

 

[Lahdoz]

OMT syndrome hasn't take a strong on me hold yet. I find some evenings I've got the bug, but I have played some evenings where I only played 5 or 6 turns. It really depends on what is happening in that specific game.

There is potential though...

Sorry to hear you are leaving us Aeon221, maybe still hear from you in the C3 section.

 

[upstart]

for me, it was vanilla civ3 i played a few days and got bored with. i had been a longterm fan since civ1 and played it and civ2 for hundreds of hours. however i just couldnt bring myself around to liking civ3. i think it was a combination of the gameplay aspects werent introduced very well imho and other aspects like AI and graphics and the interface just didnt seem to want to evolve.

anyways it was only when rise and rule came around i decided to give it another chance and was very much rewarded for doing so. the rar team just put so much work into every aspect of that game that i finally appreciated the changes even without a greatly improved AI or interface or graphics. the depth just kept me so engaged in the game it was like civ1 or civ2 all over again and it was the only game i played solid for over a year.

anyways i hope the OP or whoever else who is dissapointed by this incarnation of civ finds the same thing happening to them. i guess my point is not to throw away the game because you are dissapointed by it at first. someday you might pick it up again and find out its become the best civ yet, like i did.

 

[John_Galt]

I don't know about everyone else here. But personally Civ is more of a fallback game to me anyway. I never play Civ to the exclusion of other games, and I have been playing since the original.

If I played nothing but civ for 3 days would I get bored? Heck yes then I would go play CSS or BF2 for a while. I would probably stay away from civ until I was up late watching the history channel one night and got the urge. Then I would fire it up and get into a game or two. In 13 years of playing civilization I don't think I have ever played more than 2 games back to back to completion. As with any game there is only so much time you can spend on it straight without getting bored. How many people would play more than 2 games of monopoly back to back? Being bored doesn't make it a bad game. Trying to make yourself play it more than you want makes it boring.

Give yourself a week in between games don't burn yourself out. In the meantime check out the many other genres of gaming out there.

 

[Ex-Cop]

OMT is alive and kicking people, relax.

 

[Azrael Dragon]

Ask my girlfriend...
I guess one day my "Just a second Darling, just one more turn..." will definetely drive her mad.

 

[WasAGuest]

I rarely reply to any posts, though I read many during the day. This one though I thought I could share something.

I agree and disagree with this post. How so? Well, for me, it goes by too fast. I mean, by the time I get a good army built and ready to attack, it's out dated and needs upgrading. Having been playing Rome Total War, I guess I'm used to spending weeks playing through a game building units and buildings slowly. If Civ IV could be slowed down I would probably be hooked more on it.
I know I can adjust the rate at which techs are learned and units/improvements are built; and I've done this. It's not enough though, I need the years to go by more slowly.

On the disagree part, the game is fun for a couple of hours at a time. I find myself wanting to keep going as I build this and that... then it crashes.

Rome Total War did the same on release so I'm used to it though it's still not a good thing.

Anyway, there's my thoughts on the matter.

 

[SygmaZero]

Aside from technical issues, which can obviously ruin the gaming experience regardless of the game, I think everybody else who is complaining isn't giving this game the chance it deserves. Of course the game is new and different and naturally there's going to be some adjustment time getting use to the new rules and dynamics. I had the exact same feeling as the OP when I first started playing and I can definitely say now that OMT is NOT dead.

I started a game on a map with a good starting location and that suits my playing style and now I'm in danger of losing my job. If you're an OG Civ fan like me and you're not enjoying this game... you're doing something wrong.

For example...

AI ganging up on you >> Are you the most powerful Civ (biggest, highest score)? Yeah, they're coming after you, especially if by becoming the most powerful you've neglected to build up an adequate military. I bet they also all have the same religion which isn't yours. Conflicting Religion is often the primary motivation behind an AI civs animosity.

Pace is too fast >> Faster than CivIII? Definitely. Too fast? Not at all. Moddable anyway? Absolutely. I have units that are a generation behind fighting campaigns in the field (ie. Macemen, axemen) while I'm building newer units (musketmen, knights) back in my cities to build up new defenses. This strategy of sending older units out in to the field and replacing garrisons with new units has worked very effectively several times, not to mention it's much more accurate in regards to the RW.

So I've solved both of these problems through strategy which is a huge part of this game. I keep my units cycling through garrison and attack forces to keep up with technological advances and as a consequence of successful military campaigns I control the holy cities for four out of five religions I've encountered so far. In the event that I did get attacked by an overwhelming AI... I would switch to their religion to save my empire. Hatshepsut has the only other known Christian holy city and is comparable in size to me so I give her gifts and good trades to stay on her good side.

 

[Roxinante]

I just dont play CivIV continuously - I've got enough new games, and enough old games that run better on my new PC - that if I do get bored with CivIV, I just play the others for a while. For a change of place my choices are: Evil Genius and Silent Hunter III.

 

[Steelsmith]

Civ3 was one of the most addictive games I've ever played. It was one of those that stayed on my computer, and I'd go back to it from time to time even after I had turned to something else for a while.

I wasn't sure about Civ4 at first. The pace seemed much too fast, even on Epic speed, but now I've gotten used to it. I love all of the changes, I don't think I could go back to Civ3 now.

Oh, and as for OMT... to me, Civ4 is demonically difficult to stop playing once I start, even more than Civ3 was, and that's saying a lot.

 

[spiralx]

After Civ, Civ II and SMAC I found Civ III a huge, huge disappoinment - don't think I ever finished an entire game of it, it just seemed to drag and wasn't any fun when your resources constantly disappeared just as you needed them only to reappear halfway round the world.

Civ IV is so much better it's not funny.

 

[Thrag]

It seems that there is a definite pattern here. Some people who loved Civ3 aren't that taken with Civ4, and many who were bored with Civ3 love Civ4. I'm in the later camp myself, civ3 was a step backwards. After everything they did in SMAC, civ 3 felt like playing a 10 year old game. Civ4 grabs me in the same way the original did. Though after I finish a game I feel like I need to take a break for a while, a few days later when I start another game I feel I can't stop until it is done.

I wonder what makes some who loved Civ3 not like Civ4? Was Civ3 the first civ game played, and perhaps with only Civ3 to form an impression the fact that Civ4 does not have all the various bits that were in Civ3 turns people off?

I do think to some extent one of the major causes of frustration is that people are trying to play the game like they played Civ3, which simply won't work. All the complaints, especially early on, about war being impossible I believe are evidence of this. Preconceptions, more than any flaw in the game itself, are the source of many of these types of complaints.

 

[ducker]

I'd agree with those that feel that IV "has it". I found myself playing a LOT more Civ I, and Civ II then III.. I put that game down rather quickly.

Also on the notion that it isn't a gamer's primary game. I think in the age of MMORPGs this is most likely the case. If people are paying a monthly fee, they are most likely going to play that game... And toss in a game like Civ IV or other such game as a break.

I don't see myself wandering too far away from firing up Civ IV and feeling the draw to the OMT... especially during when some of those turns are fairly quick.... awe... OMT they are going by fast

 

[Smidlee]

For me, Civ 3 was a huge disappointment until the conquest expansion. Conquests made the difference. As for civ4 I"ve already got that OMT feeling.

 

[Bunion]

I played a ton of Civ I and II, I played a fair amount of Civ 3 but it didn't hold the same appeal to me. I really like Civ 4 though and the more I play it the more I enjoy it. I have already played at least a dozen games from begining to end and that is with having a full time job and going to school.

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Civ IV has me addicted. Even after a couple of years, Civ III was still addictive, and I am sure Civ IV will do just as good.

 

[aeric67]

All I know is Civ 4 must be better than all the other civs because I went throught the trouble learning how to make maps for this one. Can't wait for the SDK...