Has Civ 4 lost the plot?

[DNK]

If civ4 has reduced epic empire building, I think it's for the best. Reality generally contradicts the idea that you can sustain such large empires over time, unless you're conquering large swathes of near-empty land that few others would actually want, or that is full of vastly technologically inferior natives that you effectively slaughter (which is also a bit too easy in civ4, as conquering a city and then razing it in a turn is all that's necessary, instead of actually having to raze the populations in every square of that civ's culture, which should also significantly weaken the razing units).

Basically, the ease with which conquest can happen and conquered cities retained beyond a civ's "natural" borders is ridiculous, imo. At the very least it should take large amounts of resources to retain such outliers (other than a few units and some upkeep money).

Also, cities should be able to flip to "barbarian" or back to the previous civ (even if it's been destroyed) much easier, thereby requiring more units to keep control. It's sort of silly that a million+ pop city can be controlled by a unit that can be constructed from a 1,000 pop city, even if that city happened to be the capital of an enemy empire that you just rolled through a few years prior.

Units in general seem to be just too easy to make and maintain.

 

[Rohili]

I think the thing I dislike the most about Civ IV is that combat is so complicated now. In Civ 3 I could just build some spearmen for defence, knights for offence and forget about it. Now I not only have to remember which units are good against which ones and by how many percent, but also keep track of all the unit promotions and do all the math to make sure I am making all the correct building and promotion decisions. If I wanted to play a friggin' RPG or a war game I would have went and bought one.

 

[jackdog]

Again have played all the civ games and think civ 4 is by far the best yet.

if you don't want complexity play a shoot em up game.

I found I could almost always beat the other civ games at the hardest level as once you knew the foruma, spread endlesly, the challange was gone and like a shoot em up once you had done it you may as well uninstall.

On easy levels its not hard to beat civ4 f that makes it fun for you then great. On the moderate levels its pretty hard, for me so far any way, when you go to monarch and above its a serious challange for most, so everyone can enjoy the game, like i say if you don't want depth and complexity play something else.

 

[Mirc]

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.

Civ3 has been beaten on Deity with No Military.

I would rather play civ 3 any day over 4.

 

[jeejeep]

Civ3 has been beaten on Deity with No Military.

That is only because the AI in civ3 was stupid enough not to attack you even if you had no troops. No way the AI would be that stupid now.

 

[Ranbir]

While I enjoy some of the expanded elements that Civ 4 has had, I'm also upset in ways that Civ 1 and 2 have just, on most occasions, felt better. Despite knowing that 4 is, overall, a better made game.

It's also upsetting to see certain features been slated as 'new' when infact they were in 1 and 2 already and had been removed from 3 and 4.

I can understand why some people might like the promotions in units, but really, I see that as a big boost for the modders rather than the core game of Civ. I liked knowing my Howitzer from civ 2 was as good as my chart said so and nothing more. I actually found wars in Civ 2 still requiring greater strategising than the irritating management of 'promotions'. <<- stressing that's for the core civ experience, I love promotions in FFH(and other mods) where they've been given greater sense.

 

[jeejeep]

.I think the thing I dislike the most about Civ IV is that combat is so complicated now. In Civ 3 I could just build some spearmen for defence, knights for offence and forget about it. Now I not only have to remember which units are good against which ones and by how many percent, but also keep track of all the unit promotions and do all the math to make sure I am making all the correct building and promotion decisions. If I wanted to play a friggin' RPG or a war game I would have went and bought one.

While I enjoy some of the expanded elements that Civ 4 has had, I'm also upset in ways that Civ 1 and 2 have just, on most occasions, felt better. Despite knowing that 4 is, overall, a better made game.

It's also upsetting to see certain features been slated as 'new' when infact they were in 1 and 2 already and had been removed from 3 and 4.

I can understand why some people might like the promotions in units, but really, I see that as a big boost for the modders rather than the core game of Civ. I liked knowing my Howitzer from civ 2 was as good as my chart said so and nothing more. I actually found wars in Civ 2 still requiring greater strategising than the irritating management of 'promotions'. <<- stressing that's for the core civ experience, I love promotions in FFH(and other mods) where they've been given greater sense.

These posts show very well the two viewpoints I always see on threads criticizing Civ IV as compared to other civs.

First is the view that the game was better when it was simpler and easier. All these new features have corrupted the game and made it more difficult for people who want to relax and have fun when they play. Unfortunately for these people, the fan community is always clamoring for more features. How well do you think BTS would sell if they removed promotions and religion without adding other things? Everyone is always clamoring for more features, more civs, more units, more content.

The second one is the nostalgic view. This is usually epitomized by people who say that Civ III (or II, or I) just "feels" like a better game than Civ IV. These people almost never have any reason whatsoever that they believe Civ IV to be worse than its predecessors. The only reasons they tend to give is that Civ III (or II, or I) "was more strategic" in some area (usually war or diplomacy) or was better for "empire-building" As far as I can tell, the only "strategy" required in Civ III was expand to the max, then keep expanding. If that is empire-building, then I guess these people are correct. However, it seems more like total war to me.

I'm not trying to criticize these posters, I don't really see these views as a problem expressed this way. It's more when they are posted in the threads with titles like "%#@! CIV sucks" This thread has actually been quite a civil discussion, especially for a Civ IV vs Civ III thread.

 

[Mirc]

That is only because the AI in civ3 was stupid enough not to attack you even if you had no troops. No way the AI would be that stupid now.

So, when we are talking about Civ4, it's great that it has been beaten this way, shows how the game is not centered only around war. When talking about Civ3, it's because the AI is stupid.

These posts show very well the two viewpoints I always see on threads criticizing Civ IV as compared to other civs.

I'm not trying to criticize these posters, I don't really see these views as a problem expressed this way. It's more when they are posted in the threads with titles like "&#37;#@! CIV sucks" This thread has actually been quite a civil discussion, especially for a Civ IV vs Civ III thread.

Just keep in mind these are not the only viewpoints.

 

[Vietcong]

i was disapointed with how few cities u have compered to other civ games

 

[Chose]

So, when we are talking about Civ4, it's great that it has been beaten this way, shows how the game is not centered only around war. When talking about Civ3, it's because the AI is stupid.

Thats right, you hit the nail on the head!

 

[Ranbir]

These posts show very well the two viewpoints I always see on threads criticizing Civ IV as compared to other civs.

Something must be about it then.

For the 'empire building' the micro management element given to units was an iffy.

 

[jeejeep]

Just keep in mind these are not the only viewpoints.

I haven't really found that many gameplay-related reasons to like Civ III more than Civ IV. Earlier I forgot the third common opinion, Civ III was better because Civ IV doesn't run as well on such-and-such a computer. This is somewhat reasonable. However, I'm not sure I understand people who actually think the gameplay is better. In my opinion, Civ IV represents a drastic improvement in almost every area of gameplay.

Something must be about it then.

Lots of nostalgic people on these forums.

For the 'empire building' the micro management element given to units was an iffy.

Not sure what you're trying to say here...

 

[NYHunter]

To tell the truth I have no problems with complicated features. What I have a problem with is complicated features that are not fun. For example, promotions actually don't add any fun to the game in my opinion.

 

[KMadCandy]

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.

*checks Rancid Sushi's signature*

how is it fun? i'm making the world a better place! everybody deserves kindness, even monty. i'm sure he just had a rough childhood! peace and love, that's what it's all about.

*gigglefest*

ps "Yes, I suppose I could join the military, but I don't want the government having so much control over my life." i've always said i don't want a job where they take my weight on a regular basis, that's none of their business!

 

[dcbandicoot]

All the new +/- bonuses against certain types just encourage diverse armies.. personally, I like the new style. So long as your cities are well defended and you're doing well with Techs you don't need to fight wars.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

*checks Rancid Sushi's signature*

how is it fun? i'm making the world a better place! everybody deserves kindness, even monty. i'm sure he just had a rough childhood! peace and love, that's what it's all about.

*gigglefest*

ps "Yes, I suppose I could join the military, but I don't want the government having so much control over my life." i've always said i don't want a job where they take my weight on a regular basis, that's none of their business!

Heheh, no need to get all nervous about me. I should probably change my signature. I thought it would be fun to make a foil of sorts to all the 'holier than thou' self-proclaimed intellectual signatures some people have on these boards. Frankly my dear, I don't give a crap about all that stuff. I just got tired or some of the condescending people on this board. It may not even be intentional on their part, but pride is something that can't keep itself hidden, it just comes out in small wisps of arrogance.

As for the lust for violence, I blame it on testosterone. Despite what some of you ladies may think, male hormones don't cause insanity.

 

[Lone Wolf]

For example, promotions actually don't add any fun to the game in my opinion.

I actually like promotions and specific bonuses against certain types of units. It encourages a diversive army. And I always remember the details of these features easily.

What I don't like in Civ4 combat, is the fact that, unless fighting really obsolete units, artillery is a MUST - unless the opponent's Longbows, combined with the cultural defence and terrain bonuses, will eat your Riflemen for dinner.

 

[Emperor2]

I would kind of like to at least try CIV I and II. Any one know where I can get a copy?

 

[Mirc]

I haven't really found that many gameplay-related reasons to like Civ III more than Civ IV. Earlier I forgot the third common opinion, Civ III was better because Civ IV doesn't run as well on such-and-such a computer. This is somewhat reasonable. However, I'm not sure I understand people who actually think the gameplay is better. In my opinion, Civ IV represents a drastic improvement in almost every area of gameplay.

That's EXACTLY the kind of person that I am, I hate almost every change to the gameplay. And it works perfectly fine, on any maps (maybe because I have a very good computer, but I'm not arguing that). The combat system is the thing that bothers me most, but there are a lot of other things. The only thing I like in Civ4 are the religions, but even there, I definitely dislike how they are implemented.

And I'm not fearful of change, I did change from Civ1 to Civ3 after all, and very short after I first got Civ3.

 

[Civinator]

Two bowmen stand under a tree of a forest for more than 500 years.
Suddenly one of them said:" How does it come that you defend forests 20 % better than me? We stand under the same army command and I watch you now for more than 500 years. This is completely stupid"!

"No", the other bowman replies, "this is Civ 4".