Have they killed the fun for warmongers

[DisruptiveIdiot]

War is very easy to wage, and it is the best part of the game for me. The only downside to warmongering is how costly it is. If you want a complete and utter military monster you'd go for an aggressive civilization, a barracks in every city, and then police state, vassalage, and theocracy for civics. If you need to raise an army fast you'd switch vassalage with nationhood, but only for a few turns. These techs are pretty high in upkeep cost and running a full-scale war machine will take it's toll. Nevertheless I have found war to be much more interesting and the cost of it makes strategy more important. You can't just mass units at your border near the enemy and expect to blitz and win in a few turns. You need coordinated strategic strikes that effectively wage war instead of simply a massive onslaught of units at city gates.

 

[PiTiFUL]

9. Spies
Spies were used to catch up on the stronger AI's at higher difficulty levels especially Sid. The spies now are no use, if they are used that way, might as well not have that game element

Just wanted to pipe in here on spys. I would like to see spys have more options ... but they are not useless. I was in a space race with another civ and the only reason I won was because I used spys to make sure he never finished the parts. The other option to show the military strength of a civ is pretty much useless though, because, and here IMO is the biggest use for spys, even for warmongering. I place spys all over the place, nobody sees them, I have no fog of war becuase my spys see all very good use for them. My only complaint would be that I can only make 4 of them.

 

[handy900]

I pretty much agree with your points, especially that they - on a net basis - reduced the fun for those of us that like AW.

1. Armies were loads of fun, C4 removed the single most enjoyable AW unit from the game, I really really miss them.

2. Game speed is pathetically slow and incredibly boring . In C3 if you played AW you could count on large stacks coming your way early in the game. Very exciting stuff. In C4 you hit enter 15 times waiting for a worker to appear.

3. Artillery has been ruined. Again - they took one of the extremely fun units and turned them into some type of boring kamikazi unit. I know C4 is not the "real world", but still who "takes" a city with a cannon. The inability to fire artillery at an AI standing right next to you is one of the worst concepts in the game. They have ruined (eg taken all the fun out of) this unit. Some Aeson will not agree with me, but I hate what they did to this unit. The AI in C3 was deadly with bombers, but I guess they could not train it to use artillery.

4. Yup.

5. The game lasts too long since you waste time building jails and temples and theaters and garrison units instead of having fun fighting. Again, they took away fun stuff and replaced it with tedious and boring stuff.

6. I play mostly AW, so I never used diplomacy anyway,

7. Yes, removal of strategy (fun) replaced by drudgery.

8. What can you say about a game where AW is a custom selection but there is no government suitable for AW. I guess there were no beta testers who liked to play AW.

9. Yes - again the removal of fun from the game.

No more corrupt cities of science cranking out beakers by the butt load trying to beat the AI to bombers on Diety.

I loved C3, and I'm disappointed they took away my favorite stuff in C4.

 

[Dairuka]

Learn to play the game. It's easier to win once you do.

Sound advice.

We have a strategy forum which can help you become a better Civ 4 player.

Just read through some thoughts and strategies, i'm sure war-mongering'll be alot of fun for you again. =)

 

[handy900]

AW should be hard and I'd be pretty happy if it added 3 difficulty levels -- make Warlord AW the default level!

Pretty sure it has added at least 2,

Definitely a builder's game is my opinion of Civ4 so far. Which, to me, is kinda boring. ("Woohoo. I discovered Chemistry." just isn't the same as "Woohoo! I captured Rome!" to me.)

100% agreement here.

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Add in complacent AIs (do they EVER declare war on anyone but the human? I've seen one instance in about 10 games)

Now that is strange. I've read this complaint several times from different people now, but I have had a different experience. I see about 4-6 wars per (Monarch) game, and not all against me, but also AI-AI wars. Makes me wonder if my style of playing somehow influences this indirectly - and that other people's style of playing (different diplomatic actions, expansion behavior, military buildup, research speed etc.) might lead to more peaceful worlds somehow. I remember that T-hawk's and my playstyle in Civ 3 resulted in more peaceful worlds than for many other people...

Anyway, but even with the 4-6 wars I see in my games, I agree they should play a *tad* more aggressive. I never liked the MPP and war mess from Civ 3's late game - way too many (useless!) wars! But some more wars in Civ 4 would be nice, especially when you see that the AIs very seldomly accomplish to actually *take* a city during a war. They succeed in this only if they have at least one ally to help them, or a massive tech lead compared to their enemy.

-Kylearan

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I am not that fond of those great people. At first when I heard about them I thought they were also generated randomly (e.g., upon completing a wonder, etc), but it turned out they were quite predictable, which is kind of boring.

Huh? What's bad about removing dice rolls and adding more strategical options?

On religions: I think this part is too unbalanced. The early game is all about founding religions, and the middle game is all about spreading them. Religion is overpowered.

Is it really? Religion is only one option how to play the opening game, an option many people pursue because it's a new and exciting feature (and Sirian and Sulla have used it on their Prince RB1 SG too! ). But I still feel you have to give up a lot when going for religion; you have to give up early worker techs, for example. And instead of spreading religion or going for yet another holy city, your could also prepare for war instead...

Not founding a religion and instead waiting to see to what your neighbours convert can be great for making friends, *and* you save yourself the hassle of building missionaries and can build other units instead.

I like the concept as it is now. RB1's "hydra" was fun to read, but I begin to wonder if it may have lead to the IMHO wrong impression about the power of religion.

Me too miss attack/defense. A single strength is kinda more confusing. You'd have to look at other stats (bonus, etc) to decide whether this is an attacking or defending unit.

It's all about rock-paper-scissors now, which I like. More balance, more strategy, more options.

Yes, I think the No.2 lie of CIV4 is "better diplomacy". There are some improvements (like more consistent, or shall we say, sticky, AI attitude), but I think the trading part is greatly weakened. I love the tech brokering in CIV3.

Then why don't you do it in Civ 4 as well? I brokered techs around, at least on Monarch, and had fun doing it.

Resources are also weakened in CIV4.

Funny, I have the opposite impression. Every tried to get iron or oil from an AI?

7. Prebuilds

I miss that too. No prebuilds causes more micromanagement.

Care to elaborate on that?

I believe that many of those changes were implemented to favor the (incompetent) AI.

I agree. But I also think that this is *good*. It's funny to see all the complaints how all the exploits from Civ 3 are no more. 50+ artillery? Invincible pillaging armies? Prebuilds? All these "tactics" exploited the weakness of the AI and were kind of unrealistic and senseless in themselves. I want to win a game by fair means, by strategy and tactics, *not* by spotting a weakness of the implementation or game model and exploiting it.

-Kylearan

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

Concerning the Great people: In the early game, each one has a mighty impact AND they come relatively often. In the late game, GP hardly matter AND they are rare (they WOULD matter, though, if there were more of them in the late game). It's a pity IMHO that in the late game one can nothing but yawn: "Uh, another of those prophets, well..." which utterly destroys the joy we had wen in CIV3 there suddenly was a leader ("I have a leader, I have a leader!!!").

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

In a larger sense, though, I agree that warmongery has been ... severely curtailed. I think they set out to do that as war was too strong a choice in Civ3 (where it was -- whatever the problem, it can be solved by declaring war, almost literally).

I completely agree. They went in the right direction, but may have gone too far. They have made war more expensive now - if you fight wars too early, you will lag behind during the rest of the game because you've not been able to keep up in the tech race in the meantime.

I think what would alleviate this is if the AIs would be less stingy with giving up techs as a price for peace. War should still cost more than it did in Civ 3, but if you would be able to get at least one or two techs if you've severely hurt the AI, then early or mid-game wars wouldn't be so useless anymore (you would still have to fight maintenance cost!).

At one time I had reduced an AI from about 10 cities to 2, and they still wouldn't part with a single tech for peace, only with gold! That's...wrong.

-Kylearan

 

[Rowain deWolf]

Hi,


Now that is strange. I've read this complaint several times from different people now, but I have had a different experience. I see about 4-6 wars per (Monarch) game, and not all against me, but also AI-AI wars.
-Kylearan

Agree in every single game i have played I have seen at least 2,3 AI-AI wars.

In one Game (Prince Archipelago) there were even 15(!) wars and only 1 involved me.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Then why don't you do it in Civ 4 as well? I brokered techs around, at least on Monarch, and had fun doing it.



Funny, I have the opposite impression. Every tried to get iron or oil from an AI?

Isn't this a contadiction here? maybe not.

 

[MeteorPunch]

It's obvious to anyone who has ever played any Civ game that war has been greatly toned down - it's more slow and less rewarding. Suicide catapults? Using great works to expand your borders during war? War weariness for early, barbaric civics? Crap diplomacy options? Are these jokes? By neglecting the war aspect of the game, Firaxis has essentially chosen to cutoff a part of their core audience. Anyone in marketing will tell you that this is a big mistake...doesn't matter as much after the game has already been purchased though.

I'm hoping that the patch will address the gameplay issues strongly and fix a broken game. I mean the game starts off like a snail and by the modern age you go from infantry to tanks to modern armor like it's nothing. Why is everyone modding the game to slow the tech pace differently from the unbalanced "Epic" speed? Either the beta testers are blind or the developers/publishers have an agenda. Which they do, I believe: a mass-market (EA) game. Some research analyst told them people can't handle long-paced games - or something. More power to them ($$$) and their rushed product. I fear that they might not have the guts to admit that they're wrong, but if they do, I will have much respect for that.

Like I said, it was made for the casual gamer in mind, so it comes as no surprise that it seems a large number of the "hardcore" civ 3 players are not liking several of the gameplay changes. I could list over a dozen names off the top of me head that have had issues with one thing or another, but you get the point.

If Firaxis does not address the obvious gameplay issues in this or subsequent patches, then I believe that a truly great Civilization game will eventually emerge from the mods. The moddability aspect of Civ 4 shows the developers had some great foresight, so I'll give them credit for that.

I'm not really trying to bash the game here - just pushing for improvements to be made. Civ 4 is a good game, possibly better than Civ 3 even. Civilization is such a great concept for a video game and so it is my opinion that they should strive to make the game better in every way to it's predecessor, rather than to make great leaps forward in some areas (building, resources) and yet several steps back (war, civilopedia), and others needing massive improvements (diplomacy, research pace), to name a few. I for one, hope they are brave enough to do this.

[fanboy deflector shield on]

 

[Sirian]

8. What can you say about a game where AW is a custom selection but there is no government suitable for AW. I guess there were no beta testers who liked to play AW.

What an odd thing to say.

Civ3 AW is what it was because the AI was completely incapable of playing under those conditions. That it happened to be fun was just a matter of luck.

In Civ4, the AI is no longer SLAVE-CHAINED to *your* choices. Just because you declare war does not force the AI to train units and throw them at you in an endless trickle (the way it works in Civ3).

Now the AI will actually ignore you, sometimes, and do its thing.

Like, "Oh yeah? You and what army? Let me know when you get serious. Maybe we'll bother with your sorry self when you're worthy of our attention." And on they go with their own interests.

When they do decide to invade, they'll actually try to measure what they need to be successful, and not move until they think they can gain something from it.


The new Always War is harder. The enemy is more thinking -- or at least, we put a lot more thought in to how it should behave. That doesn't mean it won't do stupid things, but at least now it tries to be smart. The Civ3 AI in an Always War situation was absolutely and unequivocally brain dead.

You will not get the exact same (old) flavor of gameplay out of Civ4 AW, but I was there with Arathorn for the very first AW game. If you dislike Civ4 AW, you can blame me straight away. It's my responsibility. Adding AW to Civ4 was my idea, and the upgrades to the AI to make it a smarter AW opponent were done at my urging -- within the limits of our resources.

If you don't think we did good work, that's your call. The Civ3 AI and its ready supply of beeline suicide units will always be there waiting for you if that is what you enjoy the most.


Civ3 AW is something that came together by accident. It flew in the face of how the AI was designed and which assumptions were ingrained in to its behaviors. Civ3 AW, to the extent that it was fun, was fun by the grace of God alone, because there was no design intent behind it.

Now in Civ4, we've tried to learn the lessons of Civ3, including Civ3 AW, and carry the game (and especially the AI) to the next level.

If after a fair outing of both, you should still prefer the Civ3 version, then you are (in effect) declaring that successful game design is more a matter of luck than intent or analysis or evolution. ... The jury is still out, and will be for some time yet, but I'm not a big believer in the power of luck. Destiny makes its own luck. Fortune favors the bold.


- Sirian

 

[ThERat]

It's funny that I can see the same sense of impression about the game from people I know and have known from Succession Games (SG). In fact, the SG community is laregly a warmonger community.
In fact anyone who lurks those games, loves that kind of style. LK, handy, Aggie, Arathorn, greebley and microbe (just to name a few) games have usually been warmonger games. It was exciting to open the SG page and read the latest turnsets.
Those games had and have huge followings. You ask the same people what they feel lurking Civ4 games is like. It's actually dull, the first 100 turns, you don't even need to bother and later on, it's also pretty boring. The messy graphics make it also tougher for me to lurk.
And please don't come with Sullla/Sirian's game. They know how to write, really great skills. I mean Sirian even makes a tank beating a cannon (in fact totally yawn) look very exciting. But in Civ3, a lot of games were fun to lurk even without the players having great writing skills.

In my mind that sums up a lot about this game.

I also do hope the patches will fix something, but am not very positive about it since the agenda is mainstream fanboys. But Firaxis must not forget the very loyal hardcore base they partly alienated. What makes me actually very sad is that fact that Firaxis made a real effort to check civfanatics to get the feedback about features that should be in the game.

I guess amongst the beta's there were no hardcore warmongers. In fact I was mildly surprised that Arathorn or microbe were not selected.

 

[Kylearan]

Hi,

Isn't this a contadiction here?

Er... no? I talked about brokering *techs*, and then talked about how hard it is to trade for critical *resources*.

-Kylearan

 

[ThERat]

The Civ3 AI in an Always War situation was absolutely and unequivocally brain dead.

well, not completely. Have you faced an AI on a higher level having bombers. good luck to you. Maybe that was an accident, but it must have had something to do with the AI. I prefer the AI to be able to use units like bombers and artillery rather than making those units useless.

Sirian, since Civ4 AW was your idea, why did nobody voice a concern about WW? I mean the player should have a choice for a government that does not have WW. Whether realistic or not, it is essential for that type of game.

And to say now the AI is no longer totally stupid is not entirely true. I would say it's passive and prefers to rush for AC. In my current AWN game I am on a continent with 3 Civs. I am still able to put an archer on top of a hill next to the AI capital and it won't move out it's worker. But it actually has 4 archers there for defense. It wouldn't bother to build an offensive unit to kick me out.

At another spot, I siege the AI and they sit back to throw a single unit at me every other turn. Is that so much smarter?

 

[Sirian]

Sirian, since Civ4 AW was your idea, why did nobody voice a concern about WW? I mean the player should have a choice for a government that does not have WW. Whether realistic or not, it is essential for that type of game.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=132573&page=9

 

[ThERat]

Sirian, I hope you don't mind another comment about your post, just took a shower and thought about your statement

Civ3 AW is something that came together by accident. It flew in the face of how the AI was designed and which assumptions were ingrained in to its behaviors. Civ3 AW, to the extent that it was fun, was fun by the grace of God alone, because there was no design intent behind it.

You know that a lot of discoveries and inventions are made by luck, chance, coincident etc. Even your continent was 'discovered' by chance. You can name so many inventions. Coincidentally some inventions humans want so badly and plan all they can, get not any breakthrough (Cure for cancer for example).

What I am trying to say, even if Civ3 wasn't planned to be a great AW game, luck had it that it was. Now, wouldn't that be a great starting point to make that experience even better. One would need to analyze the elements that made it so much fun (no not the AI moves). And then try and make the AI capabale of putting up a good fight as well.
Not everything can be planned as we can see. Now we can 'plan' great people and the excitment factor is gone. After a few games, this feature gets repetitive because you can plan them so well.

 

[Sirian]

I guess amongst the beta's there were no hardcore warmongers.

You've been doing a lot of guessing. That's your prerogative, but every time you guess wrong and pass it around, you are doing a disservice to your fellow civvers.

I can't correct the record or answer any questions about what went on during development. Which means I can't go any further on that topic.


I guess this is where I start to get a taste of "walking in the other guy's shoes for a while." I've always been on the fan side of this type of exchange, and it is enlightening to see things from the other side of the aisle. The most unfortunate thing of all is the degree to which the net becomes an echo chamber for false or misleading information. The statement I quoted above is a perfect example, an instance where someone pulls something out of thin air because he, personally, cannot imagine another explanation for XYZ result. It doesn't take long before it passes around, reinforces itself, and becomes its own form of urban legend.

*sigh*

Nor can I spend too much time trying to answer charges of this sort. It's a numbers game with the deck stacked against me, even if I had the mind to try. Some things like this begin innocently enough, then snowball. Others begin with a legitimate gripe but take on a life of their own. Some begin out of malice. One should not assume the latter -- most are just misunderstandings -- but it would help if people were more cautious with making assumptions.

At another spot, I siege the AI and they sit back to throw a single unit at me every other turn. Is that so much smarter?

If you're expecting it to play as a thinking opponent, you're expecting way too much.

There are still weaknesses. It's a bunch of code, after all.

If you haven't found cases where it -is- performing much better, though, then you haven't looked very far.


I hope that most folks will give Civ4 the benefit of the doubt, rather than rushing to judgement based on guesses.

You know that a lot of discoveries and inventions are made by luck, chance, coincident etc. Even your continent was 'discovered' by chance. You can name so many inventions. Coincidentally some inventions humans want so badly and plan all they can, get not any breakthrough (Cure for cancer for example).

American continents were not found (by European explorers) by chance. They were discovered by a very risky and bold exploration that found something other than what it expected to find, but was more correct in its base assumptions than false. (The world was, indeed, round).

The unknown remains unknown until it is known. There is no miracle involved in the process of elimination. The exact moment of the breakthrough is a chance matter, but the search is not by accident. Depictions of "accidental" inventions are mostly hype. A thorough analysis reveals the consciousness and intentions behind the explorations that led to these outcomes.


The one thing that has never been in short supply, though, is naysayers. Every innovator who ever lived has run in to numerous, even countless naysayers, telling him (or her) that he is wrong. Considering how many there are, one can understand if the ones who may have something legitimate to observe can get lost amidst the noise of those who really don't have a clue. A wise innovator will listen, but he (or she) also has to know how to tune OUT, as well. Or else they will simply be lost in the sea of criticism.

I've tried to be helpful here, but now this is me tuning out. I hope you can understand.


- Sirian

 

[ThERat]

I've tried to be helpful here, but now this is me tuning out. I hope you can understand.

Sorry, Sirian, but I can't.

I don't want this thread (I started it myself) to be a ranting thread or a complaint session. I simply wanted to sound others out, whether my feelings are felt by others as well. At no time, am I am trying to flame or accuse someone.

Well, I was not wildly guessing around about a lot of things. I was making observations by playing alone, in teams (SG) and reading a lot here on the forum. There are things, that I do not know and then I even state that I guess. I said I guess that there were no warmongers amongst the betas. I would love to hear more details about this beta test, but I always feel there is an air of mystery around it, almost like a secret cult. Which in my mind is not necessary. Why can't we know about some discussions about the testing that went on. Well, it's the publisher/developers decision. And that leaves me with, well, guessing certain things.

Obviously I am not alone with my concerns about this game. I do understand that you have been heavily involved in the development, Sirian. And as always with a personal piece of work, a lot of pride is involved. So, I know it is not nice to read those concerns, when all you guys wanted, is to have everyone happy. Well, that's surely impossible.

I seriously don't know what ticked you off, that you suddenly accuse me of guessing wildly (my initial post is based on my experience, no guessing there). And I also feel really asurprised about this sentence

You've been doing a lot of guessing

I want this thread to continue to spur a fruitful discussion with inputs from various people. Let people guess when things aren't clear and then clarify things. Firaxis themselves chose to leave us a lot of guessing since the in-game civilopedia isn't a great help as well.