Has Civ 4 lost the plot?

[Adam7Eight]

I never played anything in the series prior to Civ3, so my comparison is rather limited. I played Civ3 for a couple of years before I got bored of it. For Civ4, it only took a couple of months to shelve it. I'm hoping BtS will light the fire once again. I really want to get back into this game. But what's there now just isn't enough for me.

I don't mind warfare. It does get tedious as the game progresses, but it doesn't bother me too much. I'm more of a builder than a fighter too. I can usually manage to play through an epic game without constantly fighting wars.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I kind of see what you mean, nstutt. I still think Civ 4 is the best of all, yet I find myself going back to Civ 2 every once in a while. There is just something about it, despite all its shortfalls, which 4 does not have. Like: stack deaths, micromanaged city production (unit "homes"), units away from home create unhappiness in republic/democracy, spies are too overpowered, etc. I don't know. Civ 4 is still much, MUCH better, more detailed, and the religion element was sorely needed. But it doesn't quite have the same epic feel to it -- you're right about that.

 

[Breunor]

Actually, perhaps you are not concerned with such things, but Firaxis is. They can definitly not create a game which will please everyone, but I think their hope is to create a game that pleases the most people.

Actually, if you like CivII so much, you can still play it. Everyone plays his way, with the same game, or with different games.

I agree here. If you play Civ II, and even Civ III, you as a player don't have to maximize the chances of winning using a single strategy -- but they are there and winning was often a matter of taking advantage of them. So, you may not want to use ICS, but I do think that ICS being a dominant strategy was a problem.

CIV IV tried to make strategy tough, making you think how to win each time.

Breunor

 

[Rusty Edge]

Uggh no! I hate business games.

NO my main concern is that Civ 2 was the pinnicle of development for Civ and since then the game has got worse and worse and they look for more things to add to the game to justify another release.

Im not bothered about infinite city sprawl etc etc and all these other terms that the major fans of Civ use. I just enjoy my games and like to be entertained when I play. I dont want to be constantly pressing the next turn button like in Civ 4. I dont want to be messing about with civics or the like which mean nothing to me other than another thing to have to think about.

I mean most of my games I choose the first civic that I get. Same with research - whats there to think about you need most of them anyway eventually? Same as buildings. You need them all eventually so why have a choice in which to build.

Theres just no fun in the game anymore. Threres no enough happening. Its boring. Sometimes too many things to do can be the ruin of a game like this.

Nats

Oh. Sorry I couldn't be of service.

Hopefully you and bds can make a mod that lets you happily build an empire.

 

[bds]

But to me the real strategy would be to have a truly diversified tree that lets you wander down different paths without having to "back-fill." So I see where he's coming from on these kinds of points.

Ive been trying to design a tech tree for a long time(long long LOng time...) that allows you to do this without breaking gameplay. Any tips would be appreciated. I cannot seem to get it to a point where people wont just bee-line for a particular technology to get a fighting edge...

 

[Watiggi]

Ive been trying to design a tech tree for a long time(long long LOng time...) that allows you to do this without breaking gameplay. Any tips would be appreciated. I cannot seem to get it to a point where people wont just bee-line for a particular technology to get a fighting edge...

Have a look at the Chinese Unification scenario. It's techs are organised in an interesting way. I found myself having to make decisions rather than just go after the obvious.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The maps drive me crazy - tundra and desert next to each other???

What's wrong with tundra next to desert? This is perfectly normal and happens all over the world. Siberia? Mongolia?

Deserts can be cold or hot.

 

[T.A JONES]

^^Answer: Never mind the rarity in real life, I think having a big blob of unusable tiles is wrong. Desert and tundra are worth something in real life(since you bring it up this time)

ALso the maps are so small to begin with. They should spread the 'stategic dead tiles' around some.

 

[DaviddesJ]

^^Answer: Never mind the rarity in real life, I think having a big blob of unusable tiles is wrong.

Antarctica is about twice the size of the continental US. Haven't noticed any cities springing up there, lately. Not in the Sahara, either.

 

[DNK]

I'd agree that a few improvements should be able to go on tundra and desert tiles, like cottages and workshops, but they are otherwise useless and probably should remain that way. I couldn't imagine getting any serious, sustained food yields out of either, for instance.

And tundra is capable of supporting cottages if it's on a river (probably some reasoning behind that), and with lumbermills and mines on appropriate tiles (desert, too, for mines). So, they're not completely unusable, just undesirable.

Do you want tundra to be equal to plains or something? One food, one hammer? Able to support farms, despite the fact that there'd be virtually no food yield with such long winters? Deserts are pretty useless in reality. Yeah, you can throw a city (cottage in game) up on one, but that usually requires a good water source like a river (floodplains).

If you really want to, though, you can easily mod the game to your liking in the assets\xml\terrain folder. Less than 45min, I've done it plenty of times.



I like the fact that many tiles are useless. Resource scarcity is a huge factor in reality, and the game mirrors this well. The best analogue is that a "city" in civ4 is about the size of a small country in reality, maybe like El Salvador or Cambodia or something (check the Earth map to figure it out). Some countries just have little to work with in terms of land, and end up having rather large areas that aren't really worked at all. Dense jungle, arid deserts, mountains, permafrost, etc. They can make up for this if they have a good resource, though.

I think perhaps where the game is most off is in resource trading - you should be able to get a lot more gold out of the deals, and it should increase somewhat in relation to the inflation mechanism.

 

[T.A JONES]

Antarctica is about twice the size of the continental US. Haven't noticed any cities springing up there, lately. Not in the Sahara, either.

Not sure why you cut the rest of my quote out "Desert and tundra are worth something in real life(since you bring it up this time) -realness I meant btw you used to say I can't argue realness issues with a game, remember?"

What, you never hear of Nevada golf courses? PLease what does Antatarica have to do with the tundra? You wanna know how much Platnium we mine from NWT in Canada? Everyone lives up there now cuz the place is boomin and isolation pay is awesome.
Even diamonds were hit up hard and now all that jazz that comes with investemt from mege corp Debeers with caches this big has hit aswell They built virtual citys overnight up there. (Im sure a few workshops could be found)

Mybe just land that has resources should be able to support extra cottages and population. I dunno I just don't like the way it is now. I doubt many do.

techs to improve real estate arn't real? At least go out with' its not needed for game reasons' or something

 

[DaviddesJ]

PLease what does Antatarica have to do with the tundra? You wanna know how much Platnium we mine from NWT in Canada.

Antarctica is not tundra, it is desert. You said that large areas of desert are "wrong", but they are not wrong.

There are also large areas of tundra, like Siberia and northern Canada, which are essentially uninhabited, except sometimes for small numbers of people extracting particular resources. That phenomenon, extractable resources appearing in otherwise unproductive areas, is already represented in Civ4.

 

[bds]

Have a look at the Chinese Unification scenario. It's techs are organised in an interesting way. I found myself having to make decisions rather than just go after the obvious.

Is there a screenshot of it somewhere, i dont have warlords

 

[T.A JONES]

Antarctica is not tundra, it is desert. You said that large areas of desert are "wrong", but they are not wrong.

You asked have I noticed any citys in Antarica? so Whats this^ got to do with anything?
Who cares if its frozen rock or grassy rock? The poles "are already represented in CIv4" You can refer to the southern one as a desert if you like. They (poles) give no extractable resources but that has nothing to do what were talking about here. We were prior talking tundra and desert placement beside each other no?

There are also large areas of tundra, like Siberia and northern Canada, which are essentially uninhabited, except sometimes for small numbers of people extracting particular resources. That phenomenon, extractable resources appearing in otherwise unproductive areas, is already represented in Civ4.

If the phenomenon you mean is the bonus a resource gives you, then your not gettin it. Im talkin the industry that follows the resources that permits the settlement you say dosn't exist. And no, Not on all 'tiles/miles' have it, just a few (the same as settlement in all terrain) So say its not a good idea but saying my idea is 'already represented currently in CIv4' ain't so.

Again have you seen inhabitants in Nevada, how bout Arizona? How bout the tech advanced and the rich United Arab Emenities? Youe see a pattern it follows the money, money= tech. Why is Sahara and some ice caps already in the game as other 'dead ' terrain, all you can think about when it comes to desert.

Tech advancment of terrain enhancement is real, just as real as lazy programming and lame excuses are

 

[DaviddesJ]

If the phenomenon you mean is the bonus a resource gives you, then your not gettin it. Im talkin the industry that follows the resources that permits the settlement you say dosn't exist.

There aren't any large settlements in vast tundras and deserts. There are some small towns located for purposes of resource extraction---these correspond perfectly to the size 1 or 2 cities that often exist in Civ4 in inhospitable areas that happen to contain resources.

Again have you seen inhabitants in Nevada, how bout Arizona?

These are examples of small deserts, just a couple of tiles in Civ4 terms. Certainly there do exist cities in such areas. What you said is that Civ4 should not have large areas of desert and tundra in which only small towns can exist. But the actual planet has plenty of large areas of desert and tundra in which only small towns can and do exist.

 

[T.A JONES]

These are examples of small deserts, just a couple of tiles in Civ4 terms. Certainly there do exist cities in such areas.

Ya mybe civ4 is a mini me version but im still not buyin

 

[Watiggi]

Is there a screenshot of it somewhere, i dont have warlords

Wow. I couldn't imagine playing without Warlords now. Anyway, here's the screen shots of it. Don't get too caught up in the lines of techs, they intertwine in a way that makes you think twice about going after a certain tech.

 

[bds]

Wow. I couldn't imagine playing without Warlords now.

Yeha, i just wasnt interested in it at the time, i plan on getting it with bts.

Anyway, here's the screen shots of it. Don't get too caught up in the lines of techs, they intertwine in a way that makes you think twice about going after a certain tech.

Thanks

 

[nstutt]

I certainly dont think Civ 2s graphics rival Civ 4s in terms of detail etc but Civ 1 and 2 just seemed different. The flavour of the game was different, it was more about the fun of developing your civilisation rather than just playing a game to beat the AI. YOu had loads of differnet events and things going on all the time that you dont get in Civ 4. I especially miss the throne room which was a really nice touch. And the city view. It just seemed better. I neve played Civ 3 much at all. Civ 4 is better then Civ 3 but its still lost that magic for me.

 

[seelk]

Instead of moving each individual units, there should be army groups. Instead of units attacking one by one, there should be stacked warfare, more focus should be placed on combined arms.
Civ4 requires ridiculous amount of micromanagement to win on higher levels. I enjoy winning by superior tactic, not by doing grunt work.

The game offers unit groupings and stacked warfare. Either read the manual or explore the in-game settings... No wonder people get bored .