Civ4 standard setting games end too soon

Legal_My_Deagle

Warlord
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
215
Let me start off by saying that I loved Civ2 and Civ3. I played a lot of both games, and althought I was excited about Civ4 I didnt think they would possibly be able to somehow make the game better, apart from less micromanagement and better graphics....but they did.

Anyway, pretty much the only thing I dont like now about Civ4 is that games simply DO NOT last long enough. On all my games where I get late in the game, it always seems to end prematurely, usually due to a Dip or Space Race Victory.

Do I just have bad luck, or is the game really not long enough? I just wish there was extra time to really have a modern war....

YA, I know you can play a custom game and turn off certain win conditions...but when you are playing a standard game, I think this might be a problem....that or I am just unlucky.

On a few of my games I have even avoided winning by a space race, but I either got pushed in to it because somebody else was building spaceship parts, or I would lose to it. =/

Last game I tried winning by Conquest or Domination, but it proved to be far too slow...well either that or I take too long. ;) I wasnt losing my wars, but they definetly took a long time.

Another game I tried going for a cultural, but ended up losing to the spaceship.

Does anybody out there regularly win by a different victory...on Noble or above difficulty at least? Conquest victories on Settler mode dont count ;) Or maybe do you at least lose to something like a Cultural victory?

Also I usually play on Standard or bigger world sizes...I imagine it is a lot easier to win a Conquest victory on say a Duel sized map =D

If so, do you have any advice for how you accomplished your victory?
 
I just ended a game on Noble today, too, winning by Space Race. I wouldn't have headed for a SPace Race victory but sweet girl Elizabeth kind of forced me to use my superior production capacities to beat her by a few turns only. Without her I might rather have built up my military and kicked the Spaniards out of that world. So on the one hand, the game drove me to hustle to the quickest possible victory, which does not sound unreasonable. On the other hand, it seems like it was the one and only way for not losing the game at all - and thus it sounds a bit boring...

So far I second Legal_My_Deagle's observations and will try an epic game asap.

(btw: @Legal_My_Deagle: wanna play a multiplayer with me against a bunch of Noble AIs? We might find out more about this issue when live-chatting about the same game ;)
 
Epic doesn't really help that much. The game has a serious flaw in that research speeds cause units to be obselete before they reach the enemy in the late game. Don't worry though, there's plenty of modders on the case.
 
Gufnork said:
Don't worry though, there's plenty of modders on the case.

For me that is a thing to worry about! I would prefer ONE fix for that which then is valid for all of us instead of "plenty" mods which will divide the community in fractions. Especially since cIV now is much more multiplayer, it should be assured that the game keeps the same game for as many of us for as long as possible.
 
EDOM said:
For me that is a thing to worry about! I would prefer ONE fix for that which then is valid for all of us instead of "plenty" mods which will divide the community in fractions. Especially since cIV now is much more multiplayer, it should be assured that the game keeps the same game for as many of us for as long as possible.

While i agree in many ways, I found that putting research at 150 and making it epic turns with normal production makes for a much larger civing experience... much more time to enjoy those axemen while building up your cities... very enjoyable.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134109

(edited for link)
 
Hehe, I would prefer epic+ tech and fast building, that way you have little choice but build military units and go to war...
 
If you bump up your research, (and I only play at Noble or above) you should have very few problems with this. As long as you play well and stay at the top of the research game you'll end up with plenty turns by which you will have the technology to build space components, and they simply will not. Attack and crush any civilization that tries to compete with you on the Space Race. =)

Frankly, if you play the research game right (building a ton of libraries, observatories, universities, and keeping your finances tightly controlled) most games at Noble or Prince (I'm bumping up to whatever's next on my next game) will leave even the highest tech competitors griping at infantry (at best SAM infantry or maybe Marines) while you're stomping them to the ground with bombers and tanks.

HOWEVER, it does seem that the game ends a little prematurely simply because there is too much to conquer on a Standard sized map in one sweep without over-stretching an army.

Not to say it isn't impossible if you outclass your enemies in technology... with a good fleet of stealth bombers and a few modern armour I crushed my only technological opposition in one game, then fell upon the rest of the world and won domination (I was two turns away from winning space race, and I had the UN built, so I could've won diplomacy)

There is that severe lacking of modern wars though, mostly because you can't advance anymore in technology. Usually by the mid-1900s I'm already pumping only Future Tech and watching my cities NEVER having to complain at me. Then a lot of money to hurry my army production. =) That's something like a hundred turns to wage a war against the world.

Though not impossible, like I said. The other time I waged a large-scale modern war, I wiped out all but two civilizations (leaving them severely weakened) and initiated a diplomatic victory vote, with a hands-down monopoly on the outcome.

On that note: Are the amount of votes you have in the UN vote determined by population or score ratios?
 
The majority of games I've played have ended with a rush to the space race also. IMO it's for two main reasons: 1) I've so completely dominated the world that it was the quickest way (game play time) to end the game with a win. 2) I've had to use my production to rush a space race because others started it and I didn't have a way to stop them.

The first one is easy to fix. Upgrade the level I'm playing at.

The second one, not so easy, mainly because I'm not a warmonger player.

I personally like that the Space Race is a "quick end" to a game. It creates a second option for the AI to win that the player has to stop. Previously, the player only had to stop the military win. Now you have to stop the Space Race also.

What I mean by stopping a particular way of winning is to use an alternative win condition.

For example, I am pursuing a Cultural Win. The AI is going for the Space Race win and it looks like he may beat me to it. If I still want to win Culturally, I have to figure out a way to stop him from getting there. Usually involving military, but I'd like to try Spies too.

Too me it's all about planning, options and a feeling of working to a goal. I now have to think about how to stop the Space Race, just in case. Where before I could just ignore it.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

P.S. My only Diplo-win was when I was purposely trying for that win. I haven't lost to it yet, but I can see that happening at the higher levels where I don't get a big tech lead.
 
Regarding research speeds, I like to play on Epic and the speed is just right in the Ancient through early Industrial era, but if I am having a good game, I find that by the late Industrial I am zipping through techs in 2-5 turns all the way to Future Tech. This is so fast that by the time I build a unit, it is already obsolete and the number of potential buildings I can create in cities is huge and I never even have time to consider wonders or unit production if I want to keep up with the latest buildings. I think that the late game techs should be about 50% more expensive than they are right now. I'm sure this can be easily modded, but I'm too busy playing. This is on Prince btw.
 
I agree that the research speeds are way too fast in the late game. Playing on the normal turn setting, I'm getting a new technology every turn. I have the opportunity to build about 1 unit of each type before it becomes obsolete.
In single player, it just detracts from the enjoyment of the game.
In multiplayer, it has a more serious effect: In the time it takes you to build an army of units, gather them together, march them to your opponents territory, lay siege, and begin the attack, the opponent has gotten several tech advances; your knights are attacking a nest of machine gunners. It's the same for your opponent too, of course, so it doesn't provide an unfair advantage in any way, but it does make it more difficult to go on the offensive. Plus there are some units that just don't get used at all because they become obsolete so quickly.
I'm going to try the Epic setting for my next game. I forget, does the Epic setting affect both research and production? or just research?
 
southafrica said:
While i agree in many ways, I found that putting research at 150 and making it epic turns with normal production makes for a much larger civing experience... much more time to enjoy those axemen while building up your cities... very enjoyable.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134109
I'm poring over that thread at the moment. After playing the first tutorial game, I was dissapointed when the game ended at 2050AD. It was too much of an artificial ending for me. Too soon, too abrupt and I kept playing the map for a while longer until I ran into some other win condition.

(Since it was my first Civ4 game... I really wanted to play with the nukes and advanced weaponry.)

If the stock play allows for 650 turns... I'd want something more like 1500-2500 turns. Time enough to carry out some very lengthy wars and conquests. My idea of a good strategy game map is one that takes 24+ hours to conquer.
 
Good :) I can finally finish a game in 4-5 hours! -- In civ3 it was usually waaaay too long; since I cannot spend more than 1-2 hours at a time on gaming, those games lasted for weeks, and I just didn't feel sufficiently involved. Now I can finish a game in two or three "sessions" and it feels much better. :goodjob:
 
The game speed and tech speeds have some serious flaws. As many other have commented, by the time you have finished building your first musketman, you already have researched for Riflemen.

The game is too short. I cannot for the life of me figure out why Fireaxis decided that a shorter game was better. Most people don't play civ to do a two hour game. I recall some Civ2 and civ3 games going on for DAYS.

Oh yea - WTH is the use of buidling The Internet?
 
Most people tend to complain that the game goes to fast.

Which is why there are mods out there that slow the game's research down.

The real problem is not how fast you research through the game; but the fact that the computer tries VERY hard to win the moment it has the chance to. Which forces you to win quickly; or be on the losing end.

This of course cuts the game short.

I love Civilization 4 more than any other game; mostly because I can win or lose a game in only one sitting. Nothing made me hate Civilization 3 more than playing a game for a week, only to get bored of the game and not want to play it anymore.
 
Dairuka said:
Most people tend to complain that the game goes to fast.

Which is why there are mods out there that slow the game's research down.


Listen carefully, please: Before jumping to mods, first learn to play the game properly! This is Civ4, not Civ3 anymore. Things are different. Your old routines won't work anymore, learn someting new!

I now played a bunch of games and first I was complaining as many folks are, too (read my above post). But meanwhile I slowly learn how to play this game. For me the key so far is this: Specialize your cities!

There is an interesting thread about powerful combinations here (137330). With a specialized city you may pump out new-tech military units in 1-3 turns, so there IS a way to have a bunch of musketmen before riflemen are available.

I like mods like Rhye's of Civilization for Civ3, which kind of made a whole new game in every aspect. But I am strictly against any mods that just change some certain issue which some players haven't bothered to learn yet. This is not modding, this is simply cheating, nothing else.
 
My impression was the same, but it's too early to say if it has to be that way. It might just be that I haven't learned any good methods for late-game warmongering yet. So I'm giving this one a while to see what happens when I learn more and get better at the game.
 
What I don't understand is if the games are ending to soon then why would you want to rush research? Personally I think research is way to fast all game, but most noticeable end game. Why not set research at say %75 and turn off game time limit? This would give you longer time between tech advances and stretch the games out.
 
For all those who complain about their tech racing along to fast I ask them how much they are dumping into research? I speed along nicely when i'm researching at 90-100%. But when I lower that down to upgrade my units and speed up completion of some key units it really slows down. If you want to play a war game then declare war on people early and often. This will keep everyones land constantly pillaged and slow down tech progression. When the dust settles you will find that you have lost or you control half the land. From there keep fighting or make peace, rush to tanks and then start the fighting all over again.

Conquering the whole map from owning 1/8 is unreasonable. Trying to cover all of those maintainence costs while your cities build up would be obscene. The key to conquering the whole world is to alway be expanding and getting new cities online continuously. Once I can conquer most of the world in one push I move up the difficulty settings where I have to learn new tricks to get to that point.
 
Does anybody out there regularly win by a different victory...on Noble or above difficulty at least?

I have on Monarch difficulty level. Only a small map, though.

Started on an island with Gandhi. Didn't do the greatest in the land grab. War One with Gandhi was with catapults and axemen to get two cities (including iron). War Two with Gandhi was not a whole lot of turns later with catapults and praetorians and finished off Gandhi.

Hundreds, literally, of turns of research and exploration later, I'd almost caught the tech leader -- enough so that I could play on the oceans with her. Declared war. Ripped up fishing nets and scared fishermen for a while (hurting her commerce and size). Eventually razed a couple holy cities with artillery/marines to really kill her commerce.

Got distracted at this point by an erstwhile ally declaring on me. Cleaned him up with marines, artillery, bombers. My research is suffering badly at this point, and I'm seriously pushing the cultural slider (like 40%) to keep my cities happy. Revolt into all the wartime Civics, hoping my main rival would have to do the same (she did).

Stealth bombers and modern armor made the difference. Once I got past the mega-defended city nearest my foothold, I was able to capture a city every 3-5 turns with healed modern armor and stealth bomber support. Pushed through all of my rival's territory and eliminated her from the game. Waited a couple turns for cultural expansions and won by domination. I think I could have won by conquest, too, as the only remaining foe wasn't too strong, but it was already like 2011, so I had very limited turns left.

I could have won diplomatically a number of turns earlier, though, as I had the population dominance wrapped up early. I chose not to.

Arathorn
 
Back
Top Bottom