Civ4 is the best

[BrokTheFanatic]

First of my thanks to those who keep the civ4 downloads going and to the ones who created the AI package.

I bought civ5 and it was fun but ultimately, just good, not great like civ4.

The main reason is that on high difficulty settings in Civ4, I am actually worried. Worried that I might get relentlessly attacked for centuries or attacked by 2-3 civs at once. Civ5 just doesn't have that, just far to easy to defend your lands.

I usually play with trading and brokering off, epic or marathon. Just crazy the games you can have in civ4. Financial giant, military zerger, military or cultural pushed civ of religious fanatics, scientific researcher just barely getting by with a mere percentage of units when compared to other civs... civ4 is just great. I really hope civ6 returns to this kind of gameplay.

As for civ5 I did like a number of elements. But it is pretty clear they wanted to simplify in order to make multiplayer work&more fun... but they ended up failing at both single and multiplayer setups. The bugs of multiplayer... oi.

SO! I suggest splitting the games up. Basically continue with civilization series for single player, with all the depth and such, and a multiplayer series where the next one actually works and can get rid of single player stuff that slows down the game (where the single player mode is just for practice). I think splitting the two "games" is the way to go. Both will be great but for different reasons.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Civ5 sucks due to it being a very incomplete game. Civ4 on the other hand is complete. Also 1 unit per tile armies are a lot easier to defend against than a stack of doom of 100 units.

 

[Thimble]

Yeah, I've gone back to playing Civ4 exclusively. Civ5 makes me way too sleepy.

I play a little different.

Huge, marathon, pangea. 16 civs, no technology trading, no spying, no random huts and warlike civs.

IMHO, civs play pangea the best. And 16 on a huge pangea maps seems to strike a nice balance. I usually manage to get 6 nice cities in the early game. Only occasionally do I get a runaway top civ.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Civ 5 for me lasted for only 3 games. Then it was back to BtS and RFC.

 

[karadoc]

I don't think there's a good reason to split the multiplayer and single player parts of civ. I reckon the game can be designed to work well with both. I don't know what the advantage of the split would be. What is it about single player stuff that you think "slows the game down"? Do you mean CPU time, or do you mean game playing time?

Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "the AI package", but if you're looking for a challenging game with smart AI, then I recommend my own mod! It plays more or less like the unmodded game, but the AI is much smarter, the game runs faster, and the UI is better.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

The divide between the single and multi-player communities is already drawn; making games to cater to each crowd is an unique idea. I for one avoid the online scene, in favor of a slow deliberate pace. Often this extends to lengthy playtimes in which I hope to let a good game 'brew'.
But! A stronger player gets another, equally valid, avenue of enjoyment from rapidly implementing the techniques that he or she has learned in an ultra-competitive environment.

If Civilization 5 hadn't been the ugly ducking it turned out to be, it could have been a compelling multiplayer game. As I understand it the infrastructure behind the online component is completely shoddy, which is a shame since human opponents would be much more compelling than the AI incompetents.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ4 on the other hand is complete.

Nope. A game will never be complete until its controls work. UI buttons moving after you click, units moving against orders to stop them (with the setting that blocks popups at start of turns, a necessity in timed MP and a good setting in general), hidden rules that can't be found in the manual or civlopedia, and features that flat out do not work do not make for a complete game.

It's like saying sonic 2006 is a complete game. OK, maybe not THAT bad because at least the general design premise in civ IV is good, but the horrid controls that can cost no-reload games? Check. Hidden rules? Check. Broken features (AP, vassal state mechanics, tech trades)? Check and check.

OP idea is a good one though. Make a simplified version where the AI continues to avoid trying to win like the plague and people can effectively play worldbuilder 24/7 while thinking they're playing something else, and then make a game that's balanced for MP play with a SP element where the AI attempts to win.

 

[i_imperator]

Nope. A game will never be complete until its controls work. UI buttons moving after you click, units moving against orders to stop them (with the setting that blocks popups at start of turns, a necessity in timed MP and a good setting in general), hidden rules that can't be found in the manual or civlopedia, and features that flat out do not work do not make for a complete game.

Its all very well saying that, but your talking about Civ as if it was Starcaft 2. The reason why the controls aren't perfect in Civ, if you compare it to starcraft, is that civ is not a competitive multi-player game, at least in the same sense that Starcraft is. It doesn't have the same following and the same demands. The controls for SC2 need to be perfect, because one little misclick can screw you. Civ is not as demanding as this, yea its frustrating for me to have to deal with the control-Alt-Select bug, because I like to complete games in less than 3hrs when possible, but its just something we're going to have to deal with. And there are players that don't want to play civ in less than 3 hours. I've seen games go to 250AD and the player has logged 15hrs....

I do agree with your statement's on broken rules and hidden rules, maybe its just the Irishness in me, but we just have to deal with it. Maybe someday someone can release a unofficial patch that fixes it....

I agree with the opening post, Civ iv is as complete as it can be right now, and even though there's still some bugs and issues with it, well there's no point being a perfectionist about it

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The controls for SC2 need to be perfect, because one little misclick can screw you. Civ is not as demanding as this, yea its frustrating for me to have to deal with the control-Alt-Select bug, because I like to complete games in less than 3hrs when possible, but its just something we're going to have to deal with. And there are players that don't want to play civ in less than 3 hours. I've seen games go to 250AD and the player has logged 15hrs....

??? The best defense of civ IV is that we have to "deal with it"? Really?

These control bugs can cause serious issues in formats such as HoF, XOTM, and yes, MP which last I checked IS an advertised feature in civilization. Just last week I had 5 axes move out of a city when I attempted to give them a promotion (game lag caused the button I pressed to move. Literally, I clicked on my unit, brought the cursor down, and the display moved last second before clicking), causing me to lose the city when I'd have held it easily. That's fine though. The game doesn't work! We just have to DEAL with the fact that the game doesn't work.

Except that still doesn't support the argument that civ IV is a complete game.

Civ is a AAA title. Lots of money goes into it. Games made in the 90's didn't have units moving at the START of turns while the player attempts (futilely) to cancel them. 90's games (that weren't designed around e-sports, mind you) had their units move the instant instructed...even on obscure systems like segaCD. Even in TBS, civ's genre. MOST TBS games don't have such bad command lag that you can (literally) give instructions faster than the game can handle them...on machines WELL over specs that are "recommended".

These features are not unique to 90's games though. Titles that have working controls are still made today. Firaxis, however, hasn't done it in a decade at least in its flagship title.

Civ IV (and to a worse extent V) is not a complete game. "deal with it".

well there's no point being a perfectionist about it

Wanting working controls and a game that actually lets you play it (IE 20% of time spent ISN'T waiting, doing nothing) in a video game is perfectionism?

Really???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I don't think I even need to address how ridiculous that is.

 

[BrokTheFanatic]

UI issues are quite an issue in multiplayer. By multiplayer I mean against human players. Single player is just against AI.

But by complete they mean game mechanics, and for the most part Civ4 is fairly complete. At for single player mode/games. Multiplayer never really worked as intended IMO.

And why split? Well consider the 1 unit per hex in civ5. I really like the change (though I also think 3-4 units per hex would be fine). It is more strategic and for multiplayer it is great (well, if civ5 multiplayer didn't have so many issues). I like that and hope it all works someday. But that change turned the AI into a wet noodle when it came to war. It is far more difficult to code good AI for that than for stacks that just need a good balance of different units. I could very much support one game that is about 'you verse the AI' and a game where you play against humans which can have alot more unit strategies. They could be very similar but in the single player changes are made to allow for the AI to be effective. And any elements that make for bad gameplay in the multiplayer could be removed/just exist in solo play. An example is spies. Neat idea but it adds an element that is either always used because it is OP, or never used because it is useless. Basically, it is very hard to balance and thus adds a level of complexity that simply isn't needed. Furthermore, spies could provide exploits that ruin multiplayer games. In single player mode it is up to the player and most will use spies as intended, whether or not they can be used to exploit/cheat. Furthermore, the diplomacy choices could be different in single verse multiplayer. This could make AI easier in single player yet diplomacy far more fulfilling in multiplayer.

Finally, elements that wish to be added could first be tested in the single player version.

I'd defnitely enjoy a simplified Civ game that worked great in multiplayer. But I also want civ4 to be expanded. It is difficult to do both since balance, their timing mechanism and other issues (bugs/exploits) can cause many issues in a multiplayer game. So just split em up! Then can share much of the code but they don't need to share everything. Can even be purchased at the same time, but have different .exe.

 

[i_imperator]

TMIT i never said that Civ iv is a complete game, and I do agree with your points, but lets look at it realistically, these problems that come with the controls have been in the game since 2006, exactly what you said earlier. If the developers wanted to or could've fix them they would've by the 3.19 patch at the very latest. It sucks, but I just don't see them ever focusing on the controls, as its been well over 3 years since the last patch.

It seems like you took offence to my post judging by your reaction, and I just want to say it wasn't intended. I'm just simply saying that while the game has its flaws, that it still dose provide fun and entertainment over these problems.

 

[karadoc]

Fixing bugs and problems in the controls is another thing I've been trying to do in my mod. Here are a few things that I've fixed which come to mind.

• Prevented accidental attacks when moving into the fog of war.
• Improved the symmetry-breaking in the pathfinder, to prevent it from moving somewhere other than where it says it is going to move.
• Paratroopers can drop as a group, rather than having to go one at a time.
• Disabled a couple of checks which prevented the player from grouping units which have recently moved in simultaneous turns mode. (This change does not violate the anti-double-moves rule.)
• Automated workers won't work on undefended enemy borders.
• Queuing commands with shift now works when the unit is near the enemy. (previously, being near the enemy would just cause commands to be ignored if you were holding shift.)
• If you alt+click someone on the scoreboard, the game now prompts you to declare war rather than just doing it.
• If you click the peace option in the diplomacy screen, the AI will now offer a peace trade rather than just making peace for nothing.
• If you press 'automate' with just one worker selected; only that worker will be automated. (previously, the whole group would be automated, regardless of whether they were selected or not.)

... and so on.

I agree that Civ4 is incomplete; but Civ5 is much worse. --- And civ4 is more moddable... so at least some of the bugs and problems can be fixed.

 

[MilesBeyond]

I get where TMIT is coming from. I think the Sonic 2006 comparison was a bit much, but the general point is sound. To be honest, I've never had an issue with it, myself, but then I don't play competitively (i.e. no HoF, and any MP I've done is pretty casual). For me, less-than-optimal UIs are just a part of TBS games, and I can't think of any I've played that were all that fantastic. I know that's a bit of me lowering my standards as a consumer, but I'm usually so happy with the depth of the gameplay that it's hard for me to get too worked up over it.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Nope. A game will never be complete until its controls work. UI buttons moving after you click, units moving against orders to stop them (with the setting that blocks popups at start of turns, a necessity in timed MP and a good setting in general), hidden rules that can't be found in the manual or civlopedia, and features that flat out do not work do not make for a complete game.

It's like saying sonic 2006 is a complete game. OK, maybe not THAT bad because at least the general design premise in civ IV is good, but the horrid controls that can cost no-reload games? Check. Hidden rules? Check. Broken features (AP, vassal state mechanics, tech trades)? Check and check.

OP idea is a good one though. Make a simplified version where the AI continues to avoid trying to win like the plague and people can effectively play worldbuilder 24/7 while thinking they're playing something else, and then make a game that's balanced for MP play with a SP element where the AI attempts to win.

Ehh I've just played so much Civ that the craptastic UI seems normal. x]

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It seems like you took offence to my post judging by your reaction, and I just want to say it wasn't intended. I'm just simply saying that while the game has its flaws, that it still dose provide fun and entertainment over these problems.

I think we were just arguing different points :/. Anyway it's not that I take offense, I just come off too strongly in forum posts too often .

Fixing bugs and problems in the controls is another thing I've been trying to do in my mod. Here are a few things that I've fixed which come to mind.

If it's compatible with standard saves, I might run it in S&T games.

I get where TMIT is coming from. I think the Sonic 2006 comparison was a bit much, but the general point is sound.

Well, ok. Sonic 2006 was only used as an extreme example to illustrate my point. I actually enjoy civ IV most of the time, and i'm not sure if that's possible with sonic 2006 .

For me, less-than-optimal UIs are just a part of TBS games, and I can't think of any I've played that were all that fantastic.

There are a few that were really good for their time, and are good by today's standards with mods. I guess mods make civ IV tolerable too, though civ IV still is programmed in crummy fashion to take forever to process actions + turns. Graphics are a good thing, but not at the expense of the game running competently.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Was Civ IV the first Civ game that you didn't need a numpad to move your units? :S

 

[karadoc]

If it's compatible with standard saves, I might run it in S&T games.

I don't know what S&T means, but K-Mod saves are not compatible with standard saves, sorry. There's a bit of extra information stored, such as some simple tactical memory for the AI, slightly different plot culture, and the state of global warming.

 

[AJ11]

OP idea is a good one though. Make a simplified version where the AI continues to avoid trying to win like the plague and people can effectively play worldbuilder 24/7 while thinking they're playing something else, and then make a game that's balanced for MP play with a SP element where the AI attempts to win.

And TMIT trolls all people who don't play MP. Any of you mods caught that?
Moderator Action: Please do not accuse another member of trolling. Report the post and the staff will handle it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Nope. A game will never be complete until its controls work. UI buttons moving after you click, <snip>

(Emphasis mine.)

Wait, what? I have never seen the UI buttons move after a click, with the one exception that they will occasionally reposition themselves if you choose a button that requires the game to display more options on the lower part of the HUD. I'm not sure how that could have been handled better, since the HUD is pretty full as it is. Smaller buttons, I suppose.

Please don't take offense, but you are noted for playing quickly. Could your click problems be related to quickly choosing options on the menus? My mouse has a bit of a lag to it. If you move the mouse too quickly just after a click, or click while it's moving a little, the results can be unpredictable at times. I play at about 1/4 of the speed that you do and have no problems. Is it possible that your playing speed is causing some of these click difficulties?

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I don't know what S&T means, but K-Mod saves are not compatible with standard saves, sorry. There's a bit of extra information stored, such as some simple tactical memory for the AI, slightly different plot culture, and the state of global warming.

S&T == Strategy and Tips (The forum).

Sorry for the double post.