Finally Got Civ 4; First Thoughts

[jtwood]

After years of not having a computer that could play Civ 4 (I'm a big cheapskate), I finally got a real computer about a week ago. One of my first moves was to buy the whole Civ 4 BTS package. I played the mess out of Civ 3 for years, and I have to say that I really like a lot of the changes in Civ 4. I really love the upgradable units, religion is a nifty touch, the new tech tree is awesome, and you can't beat the graphics difference, of course.

However, I can't shake one overriding feeling: I'm bored.

I played Civ 3 on Diety for the last 2 years, and I've started with Civ 4 playing on Monarch. I don't want to say I'm running through the game. Sometimes I'm a little behind, sometimes I'm a little ahead. I do feel like I'm picking up on the game quickly, and I generally don't feel pressured by my neighbors. But none of that is why I feel bored.

What's getting me so far is that the early game feels very slow and lonely. I spend a lot of time building up my capital, developing some resources, popping out a few cities, and generally ignoring my neighbors. I usually don't say word one to them until at least Writing, and even then, I rarely want to enter into an Open Borders agreement.

Am I missing something, or is this normal for the game? Does it pick up as things move along?

I'm not going to quit by any means. Just curious if I'm looking at this the wrong way.

 

[Willem]

It varies from game to game. Sometimes it's quiet and nothing really happens for long stretches, other times you'll have several angry civs at your doorstep at the same time. If you want to liven things up a bit, start a custom game and have both Shaka and Montezuma in it. But the best way to liven things up is to instigate some wars yourself. You'll make enemies pretty quickly, even ones that you don't actually declare on yourself. Civs in this game tend to form blocs and if you attack a friend you'll become their worst enemy because of it.

 

[Charonicus]

See this is interesting. The early isolated part of the game is my favourite part. There's the map to explore, resources to find, cities to site, neighbours to meet, wars to plan.
If by 'pick up' you're looking for action... Well you could move up a difficulty level. Or turn on raging barbarians to spice things up. Or just declare on Monte the moment he shows up.

 

[ston]

That's the opposite to how I feel about the game. The early turns I really enjoy as the game is moving along at a decent pace.

As the game moves on and the various Civs expand and develop I start to get somewhat frustrated when the turns start taking 20, 30, 40+... minutes each. At that point, I tend to forgo the amount of micro-management which I've been happy to take care of up until then. The game loses its flow for me and so I start to lose interest. Hopefully some recent go-faster stripes which I've upgraded my PC with will help the later stages of the game to pass more smoothly.

 

[andreasb]

I agree with the two previous posters as well. For me, the early exploration/expanding/early rush stage is the absolutely most intriguing part. I also tend to get bored as the game progresses...especially if I don't have time to play for a couple of days, I almost NEVER go back to a game, but start a new one instead since I have lost "touch" with the old game...anyone else that does this? I have a hard time getting back into a game, and would much rather start a new one where I can do all the fun planning in the beginning instead...

 

[kaltorak]

I'm totally the oposite to the original poster. I like the early levels the most. I start much more games than I finish.

 

[LegionSteve]

if I don't have time to play for a couple of days, I almost NEVER go back to a game, but start a new one instead since I have lost "touch" with the old game...anyone else that does this?

Yes absolutely, I do this all the time. Doesn't seem to make any difference whether I'm winning or losing, starting a new game just seems like more fun.

 

[jtwood]

If by 'pick up' you're looking for action... Well you could move up a difficulty level. Or turn on raging barbarians to spice things up. Or just declare on Monte the moment he shows up.

I guess what I was trying to say is that on Diety in Civ 3, I'm working my butt off just to stay behind. On Civ 4 Monarch, I've pretty much just moved at my own pace. Sure, I don't have so much time that I can horde Wonders, but compounding "leisurely pace" with the lack of interaction between me and the other civs has resulted in a different game play experience than what I had grown accustomed to on Civ 3.

I think the hope in my post was that someone would tell me the game gets much harder as it progresses. Maybe the Civs become different at later stages in the game and are much harder to play against? If that's not the case, I'm starting to get the feeling that I should be playing Emperor. After just one week of playing the game, that didn't seem right. It's not like I'm some great Civ player. I figured I had to be missing something.

 

[andreasb]

What's getting me so far is that the early game feels very slow and lonely. .

If you want more early action, play small maps and play with more AIs. That is, in custom game, switch from closed to AI in the drop down boxes, so the map gets more crowded, which is a guarentee for more early action .

 

[aday]

The AI really do kick it into high gear later in the game. Early on they are hampered by their poor prioritization, but later (when they have enough land/workers/population to do everything they need to) you will have a hard time keeping up.

And you're not supposed to say much to your neighbors before Writing -- there's nothing to say! I think it's supposed to represent the early stages in history, where communication with distant empires was neither easy or common.

 

[jtwood]

The AI really do kick it into high gear later in the game. Early on they are hampered by their poor prioritization, but later (when they have enough land/workers/population to do everything they need to) you will have a hard time keeping up.

That's what I was hoping to hear. I'll start a new Monarchy game tonight and stick it out regardless of the opening.

If you care, I'll let you know how I feel after the Classical Era ends.

 

[ston]

I've never played Civ III, so I honestly don't know what it is in that game which is missing in the early game of Civ IV for you. I do agree with aday though, the AI generally gets a move on in the later stages of the game.

 

[jtwood]

I've never played Civ III, so I honestly don't know what it is in that game which is missing in the early game of Civ IV for you. I do agree with aday though, the AI generally gets a move on in the later stages of the game.

The opening of Civ III was all about expansion, expansion, expansion. At Diety, the AI got 2 settlers and would massively outproduce you. That meant their settlers were all over your butt from the minute the game started, asking for tribute, and generlaly making your life very, very complicated.

 

[Willem]

I guess what I was trying to say is that on Diety in Civ 3, I'm working my butt off just to stay behind. On Civ 4 Monarch, I've pretty much just moved at my own pace.

Well that's like comparing apples to oranges. Try playing Civ 4 at Diety as well, I suspect you won't have such a relaxed time of it. Why should Civ 4 be more difficult at a lower level, that doesn't make any sense at all. It's certainly no reason for a making a complaint, as you seem to be doing.

 

[Willem]

Maybe the Civs become different at later stages in the game and are much harder to play against?

Yes they do. In the early game, when there's lots of room for expansion, they focus mainly on that. When land starts running out though, then you'll see them getting into various wars with their neighbours, and you.

 

[jtwood]

Why should Civ 4 be more difficult at a lower level, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Because I've never played it? I don't think it's wrong to assume that a new version of a game will be, at first, harder on an easier level. They changed a lot between 3 and 4. Sure, I expect to move through the difficulty levels faster than someone who's never played Civ before, but still... I shouldn't be able to just open up Civ 4 and jump right into Diety just because I could win at Diety on Civ 3.

 

[Scoottr]

Do the custom game mentioned. Shrink the map, add extra Civs. Or just add a bunch more Civs. I always add 3-4 more and on larger maps up to 5-6 more civs. Crowding makes for some early fights. Select Aggressive Barbarians and Random Personalities too, this keeps you on your toes.

 

[Willem]

Because I've never played it? I don't think it's wrong to assume that a new version of a game will be, at first, harder on an easier level. They changed a lot between 3 and 4. Sure, I expect to move through the difficulty levels faster than someone who's never played Civ before, but still... I shouldn't be able to just open up Civ 4 and jump right into Diety just because I could win at Diety on Civ 3.

The difference you're seeing is the changes to the city maintenance system. The AI no longer spams Settlers and fills up the map in just a few turns, it now takes awhile. Once they can no longer exapnd peacefully they'll get more interesting.

 

[jtwood]

The difference you're seeing is the changes to the city maintenance system. The AI no longer spams Settlers and fills up the map in just a few turns, it now takes awhile. Once they can no longer expand peacefully they'll get more interesting.

lol... All I ever did in Civ III was "spam" settlers and fill up the map asap.

I agree, though. That is the single, biggest difference I've noticed in this game. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that fewer, larger, more-efficient cities are way better in this game than sheer quantity, which was much more important in Civ III. To that end, I really like the health-happiness dichotomy that regulates city size in Civ IV. Very neat idea.

 

[Willem]

lol... All I ever did in Civ III was "spam" settlers and fill up the map asap.

Civ 4 definitely puts an end to that strategy. Civ 3 didn't leave you with any option in that regard, if you didn't expand as quickly as possible the AI would take over all of the land. Now you have some choices to make.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that fewer, larger, more-efficient cities are way better in this game than sheer quantity, which was much more important in Civ III.

At least at first. Sheer numbers still make a difference later on but you need to get a good economic base developed before you can reach that point. Even then, the law of diminishing returns kicks in so an empire of 30 cities doesn't necessarily produce twice as much as one of 15. The first part of the game should be about developing your economy and general infrastructure. That's exactly what the AI is doing, which is why it may seem slower to you in the beginning than Civ 3.