Has Civ 4 lost the plot?

[King Flevance]

Well, stacked combat is basically 1 on 1 still just super speedy calculated I believe. Not an actual 'combined arms' type of deal. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it as that is an easy way to lose you good units. I throw fodder units that have low chances into the fray first and have my uber guys mop up. One they hit prime capabilities, it helps take cities even faster. Where you would be losing 5 units per battle, it would reduce to 1 or 2.

 

[Red Wegener]

I agree with you nstutt. I have been playing since civ1 and I think civ2 is still the best version. civ4 gets very repetitive and often boring when half the time all you are doing is clicking next turn.

I think they improved multi-player much in civ4 but I don't play multi-player. the changes which made multi-player better made single-player much less fun.

 

[Harbourboy]

would say you do HAVE to fight a war, its practically unavoidable.

Nonsense. I just completed a Monarch level cultural victory and I did not fight a single battle. I could never have done that in an earlier version of Civ.

 

[barton31]

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.

The Gobi desert (I think that's where you're referring to) is thousands of miles from the Siberian tundra.

My main complaint is that the maps on civ 4 are less realistic in comparison to RL than in previous versions. In reality you find large areas of continuous vegetation, dictated by the climate zones of earth - classification dependent on whether or not you use generic or genetic classification. Using the generic system as you move away from the equator you get: hot-wet, hot-dry, warm-temperate, cool-temperate, cold, with the other major climate region being mountain.

What I find on civ 4 is that jungle and tundra are realistic, but in between it's just a patchwork of everything with no bearing on reality.

 

[Depravo]

At the risk of seeming fanboyish, I just can't understand how anyone could prefer Civ3 to Civ4. 4 may not be perfect but it's got more depth, better gameplay and far more strategic options than 3.

I loved 2 - which was far better and more innovative relative to the competition at the time than 4 is now - and have spent more time on it than any other game other, perhaps, than Europa Universalis, but I'm not going back, and for me it's got nothing to do with graphics or the more chromey aspects of 4. It's just a better game.

What 4 lacks, and it's a huge defect, is stability. That and a decent scenario editor.

 

[KMadCandy]

I don't know how you have managed this, I have played all the civ games too, and almost every game I am attacked by one or more AI Civs. I would say you do HAVE to fight a war, its practically unavoidable.

it's avoidable and i have fun trying to avoid it as desperately as possible sometimes! finding that out monty is in my game, but off on the other continent and way behind me techwise, is much better for that type of game than meeting him on turn #4 of course. it's tricky, you have to try to do it and finesse diplomatic relations as well as the power graph, and that type of game doesn't interest some people at all. which is cool, my #1 rule is have fun in your own way.

peaceful wins don't tend to score high at all. OCC games score really really low. i don't give a hoot what my actual score is, i play whatever type of game will be the most fun for me at the time. there's no question that warring, and almost always very early warfare, will lead to the highest scores.

Maybe, i wouldnt know. However i dislike getting attacked by civs that i was freindly with when im going for cultural victories... they need a option to force ai players react only according to their diplomacy status with you.

i've never had that happen, not once, and i've won many cultural victories. i'll bet you three great artists that they were at pleased when they made the decision to go to war, and only hit friendly later; once they decide to attack, the decision is made and the war will happen. so yes you were attacked at friendly but that's not the AI ignoring your status, it's just that the decision and the action aren't simultaneous.

i really like that i can depend on them to react only according to how they feel about me. some people think being able to rely on those diplomatic modifiers is boring, i like that if i invest the time and effort to get a leader friendly, i can rely on him not to attack me as long as he stay there. and it keeps it interesting to have invisible stuff in there too (on the days that it's not ultra-frustrating, that is). i get a kick out of stuff like fun spreading different religions to different leaders to try to stir them into wars without actually bribing them.

i like that they have different personalities, and that monty's more psycho and will attack me when he has less power than i do by a greater amount than, say, shaka, who's a warmonger but in a more cautious way, and pays more attention to how much power you have and won't come at you as suicidally as monty does. and i think it's spiffy that you can use "random personalities" so that the variation is there, but you can't predict which leader will act which way.

i like the plot more now than when it was "okay, get new cities up to population [i forget what] and then make sure i have WLTKD". i can't remember if that was 2 or 3, it's just a random example. i never did play civ1.

 

[Dida]

One thing I would like in civ4 is terraforming. Let biology or some other late tech allow us to change land like deserts into plains, plains into grasslands etc.

This is grossly unrealistic. When has anyone ever changed an entire tile of land from desert to grassland? I also can't see how this can possibly be done in the near future.

 

[DaviddesJ]

When has anyone ever changed an entire tile of land from desert to grassland?

I'm not in favor of adding this to Civ4 myself. (I do think it should be possible to plant trees, with appropriate safeguards against exploits.)

But irrigation and fertilization has turned much of California's Central Valley from desert into productive farmland.

Saudi Arabia is also irrigating desert, on a large scale. Here's an interesting photo:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37237

 

[home_office]

I have played 2, 3, and 4 and enjoy 4 the most--I divide equally between warmongering (Augustus Caesar every time) and building/cultural victory (highest, Henry VIII). Cultural victory is actually fairly easy once you get the hang of it--maybe 1 late, short war, often I can avoid war altogether. I play Noble, haven't ventured into the higher difficulties yet. I don't mind low scores with cultural, I just want to win and keep improving and I enjoy balancing peaceful strategy with war strategy from one game to the next. I am frustrated with AI's tendency to pursue space race as I would like to experience a space race victory but haven't had the nerve to challenge AI at "its own game." I hear Beyond the Sword reprograms AI not to be so bent on space race, so maybe I'll give it a try--looking forward to it. I had an accidental diplomatic victory once, wasn't pursuing it. Maybe Apostolic Palace will kindle my interest in diplomatic victory--looking forward to that too.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Taking on the AI at its own game i.e. space race is pretty easy on Noble. The AI isn't very good at targeting techs like computers (get those labs for research and faster part building), robotics (get that space elevator), it just seems to get whatever tech it feels like at the time and builds parts as soon as it can.

I can normally win a space race on Noble even if I haven't got rocketry by the time someone completes the Apollo program (though that should be a hint you need to get your skates on).

 

[GoodGame]

If anything Civ4 is the most flexible of all. Wars are entirely avoidable if you milk religions and trade. If you want bigger civs, try playing on bigger maps with less opponents.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I've played 2, 3, and 4 ... never got 1

Civ2 had interesting, very random maps, so that exploration felt
newer every time. Diplomacy was very pedestrian, nobody stayed your
friend very long, without lots of frequent gifts. With the choices about
researching techs (and the way some techs were *not* shown), I found
that I was more engaged in choosing my research path.
Combat happened *a lot* in Civ2, since there were only 2 victory
conditions. But some aspects of Civ2 combat drove me crazy -- stack death,
and those impenetrable city walls! Even musketmen were hard to kill
inside a city if you didn't have howitzers. And yes, I have a stack of 3 tanks
on the same square... so if one battalion loses, they *all* are destroyed?
The most fun part of Civ2 was the trading and espionage systems. You sent
individual units (caravans/freight, and diplomats/spies) to specific cities,
with specific missions. Each caravan delivered brought in gold AND research.
Constructing a trade web could be an art form...I was never that good,
but some of those guys over at Apolyton ...

Civ3 made the game into nation-building, not network-of-city-building.
Cultural borders and access to resources became paramount.
In Civ2, it didn't matter whether your city was next to that iron source
or not, but it mattered a lot in Civ3. Civ3 also brought armies, which greatly
improved warfare, and bombard units, which I liked. Civ3 nerfed
the whole espionage area, and corruption in the outer cities was a real pain.
Multiple victory conditions meant that you could have fewer wars,
and diplomatic penalties meant that you had to be careful which treaties
you agreed to.

Civ4 takes nation-building a step further, by adding resources and letting
you access them as long as they are *somewhere* inside your borders.
Armies are gone and religions serve to further complicate diplomacy.
The game feels slower, even at normal speed; it seems to take forever
to build units or city improvements. I think this is because
I am accustomed to cash-rushing all through the game, which was possible
in both Civ2 and Civ3. When a city had few shields, you could buy them
with the proceeds from other cities (2 and 3). Unless you have the right
civic, you cannot buy hammers until halfway through the game!
I do spend a lot of time clicking end-of-turn, and waiting for stuff to finish.

All 3 games had "go to" functions, so that one did not have to move
every single unit, every turn. IIRC, all 3 games had "group move" functions
so that one did not have to move every unit individually.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Feh, war isn't for everyone, I suppose. For me it's the only thing that makes CIV worth playing. In fact, it's the only thing that makes any game worth playing. In a society of laws, games are the only way for guys like me to work out their bloodlust. Yes, I suppose I could join the military, but I don't want the government having so much control over my life. Eh, anyway, how is mere empire building fun when you're not killing anything? Wonders are shiny, but the spoils of war are better in that regard.

 

[home_office]

Taking on the AI at its own game i.e. space race is pretty easy on Noble. The AI isn't very good at targeting techs like computers (get those labs for research and faster part building), robotics (get that space elevator), it just seems to get whatever tech it feels like at the time and builds parts as soon as it can.

I can normally win a space race on Noble even if I haven't got rocketry by the time someone completes the Apollo program (though that should be a hint you need to get your skates on).

Thanks for the tips, I'll try it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I also got my first Prince win via the space race, though that was a different kettle of fish to how I normally go about it on Noble. I was aiming for domination but wasn't quite strong enough and didn't want to backstab Roosevelt who had been a good ally, so I went space race builder mode late game. Again, it wasn't too hard after that (I had eliminated Spain early on and vassalized Ragnar though later, so I only had Roosevelt who was friendly enough and 3 other civs on a different continent - I think it was Cyrus, Brennus and Montezuma). Brennus was annoying at the end, he kept destroying my oil wells with his spies, but that just stopped me building tanks occasionally. All cities apart from part building cities just built military units to keep my power up to deter the others from attacking. It was basically a press enter endgame.

As soon as you get robotics switch your best production city to start building the Space Elevator. Don't worry if it is building another part in the meantime, just leave it 2nd in the queue. Use a Great Engineer to rush it when you can complete it in 1 turn, if you have one spare. The casing and thrusters can be built in so-so production cities because they are cheap to build.

EDIT: I don't think I even researched flight in that game until I had nothing much left to research. I had a couple of mega cottage cities (thanks Isabella) which made things easier for teching though. I was Alexander of Greece in the game.

 

[diablodelmar]

I think Civ IV is easily the best of the series. This game just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Chose]

Saying that Civ 4 is too focused on war is just not true. I have not see it my self, but i just read a post where someone said that there was a thread about a person who won a game without builing any units on monarch difficulty.

I would rather play civ 4 any day over 3.

 

[bob rulz]

At the risk of seeming fanboyish, I just can't understand how anyone could prefer Civ3 to Civ4. 4 may not be perfect but it's got more depth, better gameplay and far more strategic options than 3.

I loved 2 - which was far better and more innovative relative to the competition at the time than 4 is now - and have spent more time on it than any other game other, perhaps, than Europa Universalis, but I'm not going back, and for me it's got nothing to do with graphics or the more chromey aspects of 4. It's just a better game.

What 4 lacks, and it's a huge defect, is stability. That and a decent scenario editor.

I'm going to have to disagree. If anything, 3 has more depth than 4. I keep feeling like 4 sacrificed some of its depth for content. I'm also not as big on the de-emphasis of epic empire-building. I disagree with the topic creator, though, on the war part. I really don't think it emphasizes warfare. If anything, war is harder to wage and easier to avoid in 4 than 3 (I've only played 3 and 4). Am I also the only one who feels like diplomacy and trade were significantly weakened in this game? Trade especially. The only things about 4 I really like more than 3 are the civics system (which is one of the few new features that works great), great people, and religion (even if it does kind of feel tacked on).

Don't get me wrong, I still love 4, but 3 is just so much better in almost every regard in my eyes (except for eliminating or vastly reworking civil disorder, crippling war weariness, and corruption, which I'm glad they did, as well as the previously mentioned features).

One last thought; I agree completely on the map design. The map design in Civ IV drives me absolutely insane.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Saying that Civ 4 is too focused on war is just not true. I have not see it my self, but i just read a post where someone said that there was a thread about a person who won a game without builing any units on monarch difficulty.

I don't think you could win without building any units. Perhaps you mean without building any military units?

I guess, theoretically, I could imagine successfully stealing one worker using your starting warrior, and that being enough. Although making an early enemy with such an attack is going to be difficult to reconcile with not having any military forces.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Perhaps you mean without building any military units?

Yes. I remember reading it.