Has Civ 4 lost the plot?

[Breunor]

I think the issue of 'strayed' as always is one of flavor. My view on Civ IV is that it executed what the designers were trying to do. This obviously involved changing the game.

For me, I like the changes and I think it adds to the CIV experience. (I was a 'professional' game reviewer and I would give it a 95%. Sorry guys).

On the other hand, it did change the game and intentionally. For instance, the designers wanted to stop ICS and they did. Whether this is 'straying' or even a desirable outcome is a personal choice.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[jpark021]

I agree with almost everything boba said. I always thought it was weird how you can simply keep making military units. I mean, the U.S. is having a tough time recruiting right now so you obviously can't just keeping "making" soldiers forever.

 

[Lone Wolf]

1)War is made boring. I loved the old blitzkriegs I used to do with tanks, or a horde of knights etc.

The thing is, some people find blizkriegs boring... It is a matter of option, really.

2)Using suicide catapults is stupid. There is no excuse for it.

I agree on this one - I dislike how the game handles artillery units. I still do not think that flaw makes the game unplayable, through...

 

[Glunn11]

I do love Civ 4, but I really, with a passion, HATE what they did with the tech tree: I liked how each trait had its own assigned starting tech, and I would much rather use a simple, This is the way it is model of a tech tree, than the, whole complex shebang of "You must have this technology, but you can have this one OR this one". I just think there's too much micromanagement in this game.

In order to compensate for my complaints, I have to tell you that the civics have been much-needed. Nuclear warfare has more purpose now (pollution didn't make it worthwhile, IMO), religion rocks, and I LOVE what they did with the UN - I just wish it affected the game more. A lot of the resolutions are "Duh, of course we want that!", but some controversial resolutions would make the game more interesting (I am in favor of letting each civic be made into a resolution, for one).

 

[Mirc]

After having at leat 100 Hours experience on each and every civ game, i can declare with affirmity that Civ4 is the absolute crowning achievement of the series. It combines ALL ASPECTS of the now 'hotly debated' content. You can declare a war every five minutes if it takes to your liking! But you can also be a cultural powerhouse, full oif peace-loving people! The diversity of options and stunning graphics are completly compelling to me. No it has not strayed at all, I do declare! NOT AT ALL.

"I declare"... so what if you declare?

I spent more than 100 hours on a single Civ3 game, so spending over 100 hours in total is not at all a great thing.

God, is it so hard to understand that not everyone has the same opinion? That saying "A is much better than B, it is and you're stupid if you think otherwise" is not only pointless, but also... erm... not very intelligent!

 

[thadian]

Nut, Just keep a sizable military - i normally aim for wins via culture bombing or diplo victories and almost NEVER conqeust. Then again, i play large-huge maps with more than 12 or 16 civs as needed.

To be honest, i AM working on making a PVP strategy focused on combat and conquest, but its a learning process - my first game in civ 4 ended in diplo victory.

 

[Ball Lightning]

In my opinion there is nothing really bad about civ4, but there is some series problems with civ3.

 

[King Flevance]

As thERat said, bobalot - you nailed it pretty good.

Just for King Flevance,

My listing of the failings of Civ4 Vanilla. Take note: A game in Vanilla mode should be fun. Yes, Mods can make it more fun, but vanilla should be fun. A game that needs mods to make it playable is a joke.

I have always thought this very same thing and am glad you mention this. I think the moddability recieves more points by people than it is really worth.

I also agree with #1-3

#4 I am sort of neutral on. Considering how the artillery system was fouled up, I would hate for them to do a system like this and have it be fouled up as well. (I already do not like the vassal system.)

5. Unit badges. They simply annoy me. The system Civ 3 had was better. It was streamlined and simple. Having specialist units is really quite annoying. I know people here rave about upgrading these units into specialist units they use. I really can't see the point. It's a rather worthless RPG feature put into the game. I find it boring to figure out what type of specialists that I need. When I train a infantry unit, I want a all round infantry squad. Having to bloody upgrade each unit when they get experience is boring and repetitive.

I personally like this feature, although I have certain issues with the layout and a few other minor issues. Like I would actually prefer the promotions do more, though you get less in a game.

I like alot of the ideas you mentioned as well. I am at a crossroads on promotions. I could go either way really. I like the idea behind it but I wouldn't be upset if they went back to the old system. IN the end I may be neutral on it as well as far as the idea. As for the implementation of it, I am not very impressed personally.

I think the issue of 'strayed' as always is one of flavor.
...
On the other hand, it did change the game and intentionally. For instance, the designers wanted to stop ICS and they did. Whether this is 'straying' or even a desirable outcome is a personal choice.

I agree with you there. To have strayed there must have been a 'goal orientated perspective' and being a perspective, everyone varies.
I personally like the new maintenance system compared to the previous corruption issues, although I don't like the new economic system as a whole.

I don't really see any of this as 'straying' but I do see an undesirable outcome from my perspective.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I personally like the new maintenance system compared to the previous corruption issues

Yes, I like it too. In Civ4, you can build a city on a faraway continent late in the game and develop it in a commerce-and-production powerhouse, althrough it may cost you much initially. I am playing a word map scenario in Civ3 now and miss that issue.

 

[T.A JONES]

Yes, I like it too. In Civ4, you can build a city on a faraway continent late in the game and develop it in a commerce-and-production powerhouse, althrough it may cost you much initially. I am playing a word map scenario in Civ3 now and miss that issue.

Well CIv3 has a editer where you can fix this lil problem your havin with overseas corruption. Thats a real advantage Civ4 has no editer for practical improvement of company design where as anybody here can adapt Civ3 to a number of various systems. Why not raise maintence costs across the board to curb expansion or make civilians leave citys to join miltary ranks?

Your problem needs higher optimal city count (you got a huge map) an extra Forbidden Palace and Great wonder that does the same. You can add impr like jails or super max prisions and charge high maintence costs down the entire line( police station, court house holding facilitys)

Whats the diff except NOW Civ3 shows how real corruption effects Gov economy and how maintence cost for needed programs do the same.

Expanding roads for higher tile return seems so unreasable but its explaining everything simply: expand infrastructure for higher commerce by devoting human resources to construction of faciltys (roads symbolize , sewer, sidewalk, ped walkways etc). I think Civ3 should have had a maintence tax on roads to balance growth a lil better aswell. These lil things here and there added to what the editer already has done, could have far outdone the turnback we've encourted in Civ4

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well CIv3 has a editer where you can fix this lil problem your havin with overseas corruption. Thats a real advantage Civ4 has no editer for practical improvement of company design where as anybody here can adapt Civ3 to a number of various systems. Why not raise maintence costs across the board to curb expansion or make civilians leave citys to join miltary ranks?

I realise many people can have difficulties with XML, but I am not one of them.

Your problem needs higher optimal city count (you got a huge map) an extra Forbidden Palace and Great wonder that does the same. You can add impr like jails or super max prisions and charge high maintence costs down the entire line( police station, court house holding facilitys)

That sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll implepent it in the Civ3 mod I am now playing. I am not so sure how the AI's will handle it, through... And an extra Forbidden Palace = no limiting factor, and I want to have one still.
And to decrease corruption signifantly you need many improvements with the "Reduces corruption" checkbox, and adding many cheap Police Stations with high maitenance costs maybe will do it, but them, well, you know these AI's...

 

[T.A JONES]

That sounds like a good idea, maybe I'll implepent it in the Civ3 mod I am now playing. I am not so sure how the AI's will handle it, through... And an extra Forbidden Palace = no limiting factor, and I want to have one still.
And to decrease corruption signifantly you need many improvements with the "Reduces corruption" checkbox, and adding many cheap Police Stations with high maitenance costs maybe will do it, but them, well, you know these AI's...

Well you've got the up on me in the programmin regard so that is more power to you for what I was talkin bout, still its nice to have the convience of the editer for the majority.
About the AI implimentations, Ya I understand your concern with so many variables in play. I never got into the other details but please believe the idea of off shore corruption killers is sound. Mybe read up into mods that do this and open there editer to see what all is done. Ive had to roll with the punches with the AI sometimes. You learn from observation an try to combat whatever new dilema comes at you.

I guess youve got that understanding down. But the editer, its how Civ3 evolved and stayed around years after Conquests left town (store shelves) The editer or lack off is the same reason Civ2 died. Even though plenty hated Civ3, they couldn't make Civ2 improve and just moved on or waited for Civ4

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well, we'll see. I sometimes wish the Civ3's AI to be more good at colonizing... A pity there cannot be any BetterAI for Civ3.

 

[T.A JONES]

Ya another bonus with high mantience changes to Civ3 covers the city expansion on rolling blitz invasion . When you steam roll over AI citys in any late game your left with a pile of new improvements and many resisters.
The myth is these citys can cultural flip at any time losing you many units in process. Truth is starving the population 100% kills this chance 100%. What your left with though in this process is no real income to support the tons of building you have seized wanna keep, but now cost a fortune when added up to support (many citys takeover all at once is when the pinch comes, not anytime otherwise) THis is a real growing especiallty when trying to compete with civ not being taxed so heavy at the time. Remember you have to commit large forces to speed this now more important process of clensing the pop, so its costing you even more n in opportunty cost or otherwise it drags on longer.

At very least this increase offsets the huge bonus you would normally get by turning the surplus specialists not needed to make pop happy into scientists or taxmen. Or make you liquidate others wise great benifits like aqueducts or powerplants
THose city pop cap raisning improvents (acquduct hospitals) are just the kind of Govt infrastructure that warrent heavty maint increases . Higher city costs are sustained with greater income so more pipes, workers and electricty expenses can be supported Lets not let ourselves off so lightly just cus game designers didn't recognize this fact.
I know its a lil things but many lil things make the diff to a point where you can't say, 'hey this is a real problem' anymore

Sorry for goin on so, I'll heed now to keep on course with topic. Just wanted to know Im not crazy, I couldn't play a game that has no off shore colinization ether. If not for editer I would agree with all anti Civ3 statements except graphics and stuff, even there its been easyer to upgrade then Civ4 and the benifts are real advantages like Unique Leaderhead avalabilty.. OK Thats enough for this thread me quit now

 

[Peachrocks]

I think the problem as far as war required tons of 'suicidal' siege weapons isn't truly down to that, it might not help the situation but I think the major problem lies elsewhere. Its because units like archers and Longbowmen are too good at doing their job especially on hilled cities and more so Longbows then Archers.

I think a fair few of us have eyerolled when we see tons of auto upgraded Longbows because we know our invasion is going to be much harder then it really should be. Not to mention the fact in almost all my games, longbow is usually by far the most killed unit.

I don't say invasion should be ridiculously easy and a steam roll job, but when you've got a unit that has hill bonus, city bonus, fortify bonus, promotions, and that's after you reduce the city defenses to zero with siege weapons. I just think Longbows are way too cost effecient. In the next age you've got Cannon, these problems aren't anywhere near as problematic, rifleman have a clear weakness to grenaders where as Longbows don't have a weakness to anything. I dunno, I haven't played much of civ 3 and barely played the first two games, but I find Longbows are the problem and require suicidal siege weapons to dispose off.

I know I've chosen a different target just because that civ has longbows... even if I lose tons of time relocating my army. Rifleman or any other unit don't cause the same reaction out of me.

 

[Photi]

my real name is Photi the Malfeasant

civ 2 rocked because cleopatra was hot and you could see through her skirt!

that said, i prefer to play civ 4, it is not just the interface that is 3d, conceptually the game is far more 3d than its foundational predecessors. as the game continues to develop, i would like to see leader traits and expertises draw further inspiration from the rpg style where xp force you to walk down paths that eventually become mutually exclusive but still competitive with each other, which would get mirrored in your civ building. elements of exactly this are most pronounced in civ 4 and that's cool. there is still end game tedium something the series has never shaken.

I'm all for civ 1 ringtones however. the sounds of victory or defeat could really enhance my texting life.

 

[Allenbird]

Civ II: Call to Power has always been my favorite. You could build underwater cities; you could build cities in space; you had alien technologies and could build "alien" weapons and units which I rather enjoyed alot. Since that game it has always been disappointing to a degree to see a Civ game come out that stops at the only known technologies that Civilization knows and then go to generic "future techs" which offer no bonuses excepty for scoring at the end.
I do enjoy Civ IV though. The game is very in depth and alot more complicated than other Civ's which I enjoy.
My only complaint is the play online which is nothing more than a "see who can kill who first" type of game which kind of "dumbs" the game down IMO.
I do enjoy the military aspect though, all the very many units to build and especially enjoy the naval and flight units, unfortunately..games don't last that long online to get this far....I usually stick to just one player games.

 

[korn469]

I personally think that Civ4 even with all of it's flaws and deficiencies is by far the best game in the series. It has the best graphics, the best game play, and the best AI. It is better as a whole than any of the civ games (including SMAC) that came before it even though some of those games have better parts.

Civ3:
This game seriously lacked any strategic depth. In vanilla civ3, the gap between the strongest units and the weakest units was fairly small. Which when you coupled that with the default 3hp system it resulted in unpredictible combat outcomes. Civ3 had a rather high rate of spearmen defeating tanks, amongst other nonintuitive combat outcomes. Combat in general wasn't that strategic. Contrast this to Civ4's combat system which is mostly an improvement. I miss armies, but the Civ3 implementation of armies wasn't very good. I also loath the jump points in the Civ4 combat model, and how after a unit takes some damage it becomes completely fragile. However, outcomes for the most part are close to what they should be, and the promotion system makes the game more strategic, more flexible, less predictible, and more interesting. Though I think firaxis could upgrade the promotion system quite a bit. Also bombard units are a weak point in Civ4. Instead of going back to the Civ3 system I'd like to see something better. As for armies, the civ3 system isn't very good, but the fleet/logistic system from Galciv2 would be a great addition.

As far as buildings goes, Civ3 didn't have that many, and it there wasn't much strategic choice in buildings anyway, because all of the cultural buildings also just happened to be the science or happiness buildings. Plus it was quite easy to run out of things to build in vanilla civ3.

Specialists in civ3 also presented few strategic choices because in vanilla civ3 at least, specalists were underpowdered and usually only good in very special situations. Compare that to civ4 where proper specialist use can open up some new strategies.

Tech trees also limited the strategic choices in the game because of the tech eras. This prevented beelining to some extent, and made most games play out the same way. Civ4's tech system is far superior (though it's surely possible to create a better [more fun/more strategic options] tech tree than what civ4 currently has using the same civ4 and/or tech rules).

That's just a few of the shortcomings I can think of in Civ3, but granted I haven't played it in years. Those were just the most egregious examples of civ3's lack of strategic depth. Though I do miss civ3's colony system, and wished that civ4 had kept it. I think that airunits in civ3 might be slightly better implemented than in civ4, but from the newest reviews it seems like BtS may fix civ4's air unit system. I also prefer the civ3 bombard units (except for the automatic capture feature which is fairly ********) to civ4's suicide cats, though I'd like a better system than either of those.

Civ2:
It has worse graphics (speaking absolutely here not relative to the time), worse AI, and fewer ways to play the game. Most games are exactly the same. ICS, howitzer blitzes, and other strategies are without a question the BEST way to play. However it does have civil wars (unless you play modded civ4), a better space race (till BtS comes out), partisans from conquest, caravans, and arguably a better or easier set of scenario creation tools. Though certainly for modding teams that have the proper skills Civ4's mod tools give them more chances to alter gameplay.