The game is boring,repetitive and pointless. It's like Civilization 3, with "3D" graphics that aren't very good
I agree with you. I don't see a whole huge improvement over 3. Although I laughed when I first read the bolded statement. Because I agree with you and know exactly what you are talking about but on this board - them's fightin' words.
Most people who like 4 think 3 is the ultimate low in Firaxis's existance, blah blah, blah. Not everyone, mind you, but alot of people. But these people that do would honestly rank CTP over Civ 3. (Which I liked CTP as well but not more than 3. My good fortune is that while I held issues with parts of 3, and Firaxis's undetermined will to try and dig in and really pull the game out that it held potential to be - I liked it.
combined with a mod than has too many wonders and useless features(Religion being one).
Thank you. I still to this day have no idea how such an imbalanced and worthless feature can be some one's "favorite addition to the game". I can't stand the addition of religion. It isn't that I don't want religion in the game, its just that its system is so imbalanced and screwy it isn't worth it.
Every time I see a thread with "Civilization 4: The best game of the century" or reviews that give a 95%+ rating, I feel like giving the entire universe a kick in the groin.
I feel the same way about the reviews for this game. Not that it's a bad game, but a 95% rating it aint there. MAYBE with Beyond the Sword. But even then in order to really get a 95% they would have to address many imbalances in the game and so forth. I would rate C4W at about a 65-70% score, personally. Basic Civ 4 (Vanilla) would rate at about a 60-65%.
P.S If you want me to list the numerous failings of Civilization IV, just say so as I really can't be bothered at the moment. I will list a comprehensive list, when I get back.
I do. I think it would be interesting.
Lonewolf said:
Someone cares me to enlight what are the principal difference between Elite status and Combat4 status?
If that's a serious question, COmbat 4 really depends on the unit. To a warrior, it means 2.8
instead of 2
. To a Modern Armor it is the difference of 40
and 56
SO combat on some units (early units IMO is almost not worth it until you are at least pulling out a .8-1.0 Strength per Combat promo.
Desert fox said:
CivIV was a step foward and back in many ways. For starters the non military aspect of the game ROCKS.. its fun and more real... I still hate that a city of millions can only build 1 thing at a time.. and that a city can onlt have 1 factory..ect... i would like to have an industrial area.. a farming area..ect... if a city had 5 factories it could build 5 things at1 time.. it would have to rely on farming towns to feed its ppl..
That idea is pretty cool. However, there should be alimit as to how many "factories" or "production stations" a city could have based off population. For instance a city with a population of 1-3 could only build 1 thing at a time. Population 4-7 be able to build 2 things at once. 8-12 - 3 things, etc.
But rather than have them have to "build" a factory, the ability to do so be granted to the city at the population increase. Additionally, there should be a cut-off point at like 5 things at once. So a city at say 30+ population gets to build 5 things. Having a 60 population city shouldn't be allowed 8 things IMO.
You may also check out Dale's Combat Mod for the Civ 3 warfare in 4.
DNK said:
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).
Your first paragraph has me thinking of being able to conquer a city and turn it into a 'colony' rather than a city you control. It would be cool if when you took a city you could have the option to colonize it, raze it, or conquer it. If colonized, it would basically act as a vassal maybe along side any other 'colonies' you have taken. Only it would have to be distinguishable between vassals and colonies.
This would be an interesting way to bring in civil wars IMO. As colonies would require more military presence to keep them content but it would pay off due to distance maintenance.
But it would also help some if 1 access to a resource didn't supply every city you control and instead they came with quantities. But these ideas aren't really new. More like a collaberation. (sp?) But basically, then you would have to worry abbout being able to provide enough happiness luxuries for every city you control, including colonies.
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.
I would love if they took this into more depth myself. The military aspect in civ has always been very simplistic. I would love for it to require time and effort to raze 'culture' out of lands you have conquered. As well as razing the cities themselves.
dagriggstar said:
Lastly In civ II for me there can be 4 kinds of civ - militaristic, expansive, builder and trader. In civ IV we have militaristic and builder. (Because whether a civ is a trader depends on resources not building trade routes with caravans, and you can't expand too much because then you get no tech and get overwhelmed by better units.)
Actually, you can expand in Civ 4... but it is mostly going to have to be through conquest. (Even on Huge maps) It is also possible to lead in tech and power as you do it but you will sacrifice culture mostly to get those two. Or you can lead in tech and culture but sacrifice military. (Kinda dangerous to that though) That part I don't mind.
I really do miss the 'trader' feature that you mention though. The part of this game that is missing IMO is economy. It is more present than it was in 3 but that isn't saying much. 2's economic model blows 4 out of the water. Sure, it was more tedious but it payed off. 4's is so hands off that trying to get a good idea of what you need to do to get a handle on your economy is
almost invisible... or
all but invisible. I have been wanting to come up with a way to tinker with the economic system on 4 but only have half an idea really I got from someone on these boards. I don't want to bring caravans back, but I do want more interactive trade relations/routes. In the end, I want the trait "Financial" to linked more to a better trade system than a land based one.
In former versions of civ (for example Civ 3), the units lost their elite status when upgrading. As upgrading was only possible in cities that contain barracks and even a new created unit in a city with barracks received the "veteran status", this was somewhat acceptable. The promotion system in the epic game of Civ 4 (with gaining a lot of additional boni until the end of all times) for me isn´t acceptable any more (this could be different in special scenarios).
I confess I still play Civ1 sometimes...
