I managed to found at last why Civ 2 is the best

[Kissamies]

While there is some aspects of Civ 4 I don't like (mainly some of the simplifications and "mainstreamizations" where I would actually wanted more detail), I must say that Civ 4 is the best Civ so far in my books. The things that I miss from earlier versions, mainly from II and SMAC, are fairly trivial. What I consider to be good aspects of III were included, so there is not much for me to miss from that.

 

[vinstafresh]

I played Civ2 for the first time in 1997 and got hooked instantly. I didn't know what to do at all and I could barely win at chieftain. I can't remember choosing a higher difficulty than that. When Civ3 came out, I wanted to learn more and become a better player. I discovered gamefaqs and ultimately this board. I have had my share of good times with Civ2+3, but I can't go back to them anymore, because of all the required micromanagement and the unbarable clicking. I do agree that wonders aren't as 'wonderful' as they used to be, they have been balanced too well I guess (no more Leonardo's Workshop insanity)...

Perhaps Civ4 is not the best in the series, but it is the most fun and playable version of the series. I don't think Warlords will make this installment any better than it already is, but it will sure add to the fun until the next expansion I'll blindly purchase.

 

[T.A JONES]

Units movement is fine with me. I haven't notice this delay.

What finally a person who says this delay never happens?. Wait Smid is that you? Your the same guy who gets 20 minutes waiting times in Civ3 remember that argument?. this was all on your 3.8 2gb 7800 "MIDDLE RANGE "pc. what argument were trying to quell with that line?
funny you never noticed what everyone else has,even the guys with 3.0 processors . Well mybe thats what I need to get that problem to stop, A mid range PC , but you opinions are a perfectly legit representation of the Civ4 sorry brought that up

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, Hitler had about 3 million people agreeing with HIS opinion. Didn't make him right though, did it? But enough insults, here are the facts:

1) Choice on Start-up:

(a) Civ 4 has more map sizes and map choices than Civ2 (or Civ3 for that matter). Including Terra, Highlands and Great Plains-each one bringing a totally different strategy to the game.

(b) There are a host of different length games you can choose from-from Blazing to Marathon. Again, each one brings with it a VERY different strategy and feel.

(c) Choosing a Civ actually MEANS something. As I said, which civ you choose will influence your gameplay-especially on the basis of what UU they can build (and Unique buildings in Warlords). More important, though, is your choice of leader, which will often alter your path to victory. For instance, if I get an Industrious Leader, then I will try and get a few of the early Wonders. If I get a philosophical Leader, then I will aim for city improvements which allow me to specialise my citizens. It may well also change what TYPE of victory I go.

2) Choice in Game: Well, in civ2 its build city, build city, build city. When you meet another civ-exploit them, attack them, then exploit them some more, until you have conquered all their cities. Oh, thats right, in Civ2 each city instantly became a base to build MORE UNITS-thus allowing for runaway conquest. Also, there were really only a couple of units-in any era-which were of any use, and they were all totally generic (just like the civs which built them). Even if you COULD maintain long-term relations with an AI civ, which you never could, there was really no point in doing so. Oh, not to mention the 'CHOICE' of irrigation or Mine . Oh and then there was the 'choice' of governments-those little straight jackets which really came down to Monarchy/Communism during war, and Democracy/Republic during peace-oh and fundamentalism if you REALLY want an exploit.

In Civ4, however, you have to REALLY think about where you place your first cities-both because of how much they cost you AND because each resource/terrain brings its own benefits. Also, you REALLY have to think about which techs you choose-especially at the start. For instance, do you beeline for bronzeworking so you can chop those forests, or do you beeline for meditation or Polytheism for early religion. Or perhaps you want to go the economic route and get pottery and currency as early as possible.
Oh, then there are the Wonders. They are not as uber-powerful as in previous games, but getting at least some of them IS important. This is where access to resources like stone, bronze and marble can be so important. But which Wonders you go for will depend on your strategy. If you are pursuing the economic route, then Wonders which produce Great Merchants are so important. If you are going for religion, then trying to get Oracle or Stonehenge is a good way to go. However, going for Wonders IS a risky endeavour, and this in itself brings CHOICE. More than once I have been 2 turns away from a Wonder, only to get pipped at the post-but Ce La Guerre.
On each plot, you often have a choice of more than 1 terrain improvement, each with its own benefits-go for the long-term investment of cottages, or the immediate benefits of mines and farms? Of course, everything I have just described has usually occured just within the first 100 turns of the game, and the more cities you build and the more nations you meet, the more choices you have. Do you go for early war, or do you try to cultivate a long-term relationship (easier to achieve if you share religion). Do you attack direct, or do you play puppet-master, and get one of your close friends to fight for you. Lastly, with 4 different civics in 4 different categories, you have over 256 options for tailoring your government-many dependant on your game by game situation. The one theme which runs throughout my little spiel is: Civ2 gives either no choice or-at best-a hobsons choice (where one choice is bad, the other good), wheras Civ4 offers Choice, choice, CHOICE-and those choices actually MATTER. Now, I will reiterate that Civ4 is not PERFECT-at least NOT YET. It IS still better than Civ2, IN MY OPINION, because of all the choices which it offers the player throughout the game. Now, quite frankly, I am sick of this thread-as it takes away valuable time which I COULD be using to play Civ4.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[kokomo]

I played Civilization for the first time in January 1994 in an old friend's HP Vectra computer...

I chose the Romans and couldn't do much but being wiped out by.... barbarians!!!

Later on I kept on playing it until Civ2 appeared, and I shared my knowledge among my friends

Civ2 came for my birthday in 1996 and I enjoyed it very much too. I loved the new wonders and I grew fond of the Sistine Chapel and Leonardo's Workshop... I also became frantic of the howitzers and spies. Those were my two favorite units...

I skipped Alpha Centauri, although I played it a friends house but there was too much customization and I HATED the landscape

In 1999 I bought Play the World only three times until I got fed up of a "lawyer" stopping my production every other turn and my Civ splitting in two because of a wonder I cannot even recall.

In 2002 I got Civ3 and I loved the cultural boundary but something didn't feel quite right for me... I enjoyed Conquests far way more though

Now I got Civ4 and I am liking it already. Is it better than the others? Hard to say. It's different and has new features. Would I play Civ3 rather than Civ4? Don't think so. but I would play civ2 though. In my opinion civ4 is like an upgrade of Civ3, which was a huge breakthru in the civilization series...

Should we expect something radical and totally new for Civ5?

 

[T.A JONES]

Well, Hitler had about 3 million people agreeing with HIS opinion. Didn't make him right though, did it? But enough insults, here are the facts:

Well 'hitler' isn't following you around in every thread you post here giving his respected opinion. if he was, you would begin to think its the usual to.(not serious) And whats with this bout insults I never called him hitler?

Civ 4 has more map sizes and map choices than Civ2 (or Civ3 for that matter). Including Terra, Highlands and Great Plains-each one bringing a totally different strategy to the game.

I disagree Have you seen the world size option in the editer(conquests), you can go as big or as small as you want. If you don't mind waiting chessmaster length turns you can build such abig map its crazy! GIGA should come equipt with MAXIUM, but at least any size is a option. GIGA is not for everybody but the 'standard' huge map is still a stretch of the Civ4 size.

(b) There are a host of different length games you can choose from-from Blazing to Marathon. Again, each one brings with it a VERY different strategy and feel.
Aussie_Lurker.

Well you can play 1 or 999 turns in Conquest and I tell ya its sure changes the feel, from short to long The rest has to do with whatever your other variables are

Anyway I'll stop there.(take off the rose tints ) where heading out of my domain. I never played Civ2. Civ3 was mentioned though so its fair game. It sounds like your a little unknowledgable about all the avenues leading out from Civ3. Why did you bash the other guy for the same thing.
I doubt this opinion is coming from someone who really knows the in and outs of the Conquest editer. Theres so many elements you can improve.I like to add over-seas colony starter kits(corruption killers) like a summer Palace (just add 2 or 3more forbidden Palace wonders) or just using the editer to raise the amount of a citys before the penalty kicks in. You see both variables can be dealt with distance and number of cities. Yes thats only one example. You can take care of so may annoyances this way. like getting rid of that flood of unfair Army units by raising the amount of citys needed to support one. I make it so I only get 1 or two at a time. I lower the shield cost so the Ai has a better chance of building his. Who cares about cost when you can a only have one at a time. You see those are small examples of how my game plays compared to the version of Civ3 unexpierenced critics like to judge Civ4 by.

Mods changed my entire perspective. Its hard listening to some people call down or say they were disapointed by a particuler aspect of Conquests, when you know you agreed with them at one point but have long since solved my problem just by opening the BIC. You can learn how to go in more detail at the C+C but I was lucky to come at a time when the Mod library was bursting with all the fixes to my previous beefs. Everything was ripe for the picking!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I was referring to the fact that some of MY comments might be construed as insulting-you have been the model of decorum T.A. Jones -and that I wanted instead to get down to FACTS.
Note, I haven't denigrated Civ3 much because, IMO, it was a huge step forward from Civ2. It wasn't perfect, and there were huge teething problems, but it WAS a good game-especially by the time Conquests came out. I do feel like a lot of great opportunities were lost, though, many of which appeared in SMAC, and which have FINALLY made their way into Civ4 (Social Engineering, Leader Personalities and the like). I put much of that down to the problems they had in the development of Civ3 though (like losing Brian Reynolds-co-creator of SMAC), and there were still many great things in Civ3-like resources, Unique Units and Borders (finally, I felt like I was running a NATION, not a loose confederation of city states!). ICS and Corruption still remained 'game-breaking' problems for me, though!
In my opinion, though, Civ4 takes all of the best elements of Civ3, SMAC and-yes-even Civ1 and 2, and have added in all new ingredients which I think make a BRILLIANT GAME with maximum choice and different levels of strategy.
Now, it would be wrong of me not to point out what I think still needs to be improved. For instance:

1) There is still too much rise-and not enough fall. I still want to see more dynamic civilizations. Going into anarchy too often, leaving your people too unhappy/unhealthy for too long and refusing to adopt your people's preferred civics should lead to problems within your nation-namely rebellion. Now Trip has already created a mod to address this, but it NEEDS to be a part of the official game IMO. Also, you should be able to provoke rebellion in your neighbours .

2) Linked to (1) If nations can 'fall', new nations should always be able to rise. Barbs have come a LONG way since Civ2, but they need to take the FINAL STEP. Limited diplomacy with Barbarians should be allowed AND collections of Barb cities should be able to form into fully-fledged civs. Now, again, this latter step has already been taken in a Mod, but it SHOULD be a part of the official game.

3) Religions are too vanilla. Now this is a new concept for Civ, but I hope it gets further development in later expansions. Inter and Intra-religious conflicts should be a possibility (Crusades, Inquisitions, Schisms). Perhaps allowing founding civs to adopt 'traits' for their religions, and more religious civics.

4) There does still need to be more ways of 'interacting' with other civs. The Bad People Mod gives us some insights in how to achieve this-where 'Reverse Great People' can be used to cause crime, corruption and unhappiness in foreign cities. This could be taken even further, though, with an ability to 'infect' foreign cities with your culture, an ability for citizens to move between cities and nations (taking some of the city's culture with them), perhaps an ability to place 'Franchises' in foreign cities using Great Merchants, and so on.
Lastly, spies need to appear earlier in the game, and espionage needs to play a bigger part of the whole game. Namely, at the end of the day, we do need more options for interacting with other civs-for good and ill-beyond peace and war.

5) Trade Routes. Very, VERY important. The trade model in civ4 is good, but there needs to be ways for enemies to disrupt all types of trade-by land and sea-such as bandits and pirates. Some kind of trade routes which can be made 'visible' in the trade screen might be a good way to go.

Anyway, these are just a few thoughts but-even without the aforementioned features-Civ4 still remains a standout game-just one which is still in need of improvements-just like ANY new game!

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, Hitler had about 3 million people agreeing with HIS opinion

Ok you win, I'm not going farer with you. What sweets of you is that it is YOU who can't stand other opinions, not me. Did I angered at anybody opinion here? NO! I'm even reporting you before you are going farer, if by luck you don't totally have the moderators in your pocket.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, I have always supported your RIGHT to believe that Civ2 is better than Civ4, I don't understand WHY or HOW you can feel that way, but hey its a free world-it is when YOU make broad statements and attack the game without backing it up with actual examples, and suggesting that anyone who says otherwise is WRONG, that gets on my nerves.
I admit that Civ4 may not be your cup of tea. That doesn't mean that Civ4 is a 'bad game' which is missing out on 'the fundamentals'-as you suggest. It simply means it is a game YOU DON'T LIKE!!! I don't like Civ2, and could never go back to it but-hey-it was pretty good for its time (but I feel its time is now gone).
Oh, and please don't try and smear the good name of the moderators. They do a very good job and-if they feel I need to be banned for anything I have done or said-then I will wear it. I think you are overreacting though but, hey, again its your right to complain.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I played Civilization for the first time in January 1994 in an old friend's HP Vectra computer...

How the hell do you do to remember the exact times you played a game? If you ask me... I can't say.

On contrary I can say approximatively how many Civ games I played, all games in, about 100 for sure, if not 150.

Should we expect something radical and totally new for Civ5?

For me that's a must. There is so much things to do with such a series. Plus I can hardly imagine how people over here don't begin to get sick of this game, as they seem to be here for ages. Probably more talk than real game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Hey, I have always supported your RIGHT to believe that Civ2 is better than Civ4, I don't understand WHY or HOW you can feel that way, but hey its a free world-it is when YOU make broad statements and attack the game without backing it up with actual examples, and suggesting that anyone who says otherwise is WRONG, that gets on my nerves.
I admit that Civ4 may not be your cup of tea. That doesn't mean that Civ4 is a 'bad game' which is missing out on 'the fundamentals'-as you suggest. It simply means it is a game YOU DON'T LIKE!!! I don't like Civ2, and could never go back to it but-hey-it was pretty good for its time (but I feel its time is now gone).
Oh, and please don't try and smear the good name of the moderators. They do a very good job and-if they feel I need to be banned for anything I have done or said-then I will wear it. I think you are overreacting though but, hey, again its your right to complain.

Aussie_Lurker.

It's not a bad game in itself, I already said it I feel.
Still, I don't due to you anything.
But it's a bad game compared to what was Civ2. that's for sure is 'M.O.', it does not come from the ass of an hyppo.
Sorry if all this gets on your nerve, just stop posting, go out, shout, cry, and come back, but I don't want your flaming in my topic.

-about examples, there are plenty ARGUMENTS in the first post, that's even better than simple examples.
-about "fundamentals", that's just a simple word I used to express an idea, so go pass your nerves elsewhere.

 

[Vladesch]

Removal of zones of control weakened civ3 and civ4 IMO. At the very least you should get a free shot at an enemy moving through your ZOC to weaken him.

Without ZOC defensive forts are pointless because the enemy just walks around you, unless you put a fort on every square.

And I know its been posted thousands of times, but Im not fond of the way artillery works in civ4. Artillery should have been a "hitpoint unit" that could be destroyed by artillery firing at it, and the AI merely had to stack up its own artillery in its cities and shoot back at you with superior force.

I also dont like the way deserts and mountains are totally useless. It should be possible to mine mountains and irrigate desert like in civ2.

Tech trading is wrong in civ4 too. Notice how the AI will never accept an even trade for tech, yet is able to trade pretty freely with other AI's. If they treated other AI's the same as they treated the human, then they would never trade techs. Try turning off tech trading and notice how much easier the game is.

AI should seldom reject an even tech trade. A human player would almost always take a even tech trade. It only works because I have this big banner over my head with "HUMAN" on it, and the AI's conspire against me.

 

[kokomo]

How the hell do you do to remember the exact times you played a game? If you ask me... I can't say.

On contrary I can say approximatively how many Civ games I played, all games in, about 100 for sure, if not 150.

I do remember it, because he had shown me some new things to install in his PC (he was such a tech dork and had just bought a PC to impress people all around ) and besides it's like your first kiss, impossible to forget!

Can't say how many times I'd played civ1, but I only had two games on my PC por longgggg, Civ1 and Railroad Tycoon

 

[Kerrang]

You know what I REALLY don't like, Naokaukodem?

Bravo! I realize he started this thread, but he certainly has an obnoxious and grating attitude. I like how he thinks he can hurl around insults like 'Civ Dorks' with impunity, but when you compare him to Hitler, he goes crying to the mods.

Sorry if all this gets on your nerve, just stop posting, go out, shout, cry, and come back, but I don't want your flaming in my topic.

You might want to consider the fact that it is your attitude that is beginning to provoke the flames. Stop acting so superior, and stop insulting those who disagree with you by calling them 'Civ Dorks', and maybe your topic will get back on track.

Sure, some people may refer to themselves as Civ Dorks, that is their prerogative. I know people who refer to themselves as "*******s", and are proud of it, that doesn't make calling someone an ******* a compliment, it is still an insult.

Now, to address the topic of discussion...

I do have a considerable amount of nostalgia for the first two Civs, and SMAC, they were great games that kept me addicted for years. I was not quite as taken in by Civ3, though I still played and enjoyed it, just not nearly as long. I never got into the mod scene with Civ3, and maybe that limited my attraction to the game, or maybe I was just playing other games at the time that I enjoyed more. I love the Total War series, and was playing it addictively at around the same time as I was playing Civ3, so that likely had some impact.

CIV just seems like a much better game to me, and it comes down to the options that are available. I was frustrated by the game at first, but that was because I was still trying to play it the way I had played the previous versions, mostly banking on ICS to carry me through the rough times. I also knew that if I fell behind on tech, I could use my military to liberate some techs from the enemy and catch up. Now every decision I make has consequences, and there are several ways to win (especially with chopping nerfed).

Of course it is not all peaches an creamm, there are some problems. The largest beef I have with CIV is with the graphics engine, and I have seen several people raise that issue in this thread, so I won't belabor the point too much. It is just that so many of the limiting decisions that the developers made were a result of the 3d graphics engine, I think they would have been wiser to stick with a 2d engine. Obviously, they reduced the maximum map sizes from previous versions because of the graphics engine, however, this is somewhat mitigated by the additional map types that have been provided. Those map types could have been included in a 2d engine, though, so that was not an adequate answer to the problem.

The reduced map size, combined with improved AI, has also affected the maximum number of AI civs allowed in a game, and while I don't mind this trade off for better AI, I don't think it is a good trade off just to have arguably better graphics. By "arguably better graphics", I mean that although the graphics are more polished and modern, they can actually detract from the gameplay, as it is no longer as easy to tell what is going on in the gameworld at a glance.

This leads me to something that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The fact that the AI moves are no longer followed in this version. Once again, this is a decision which I think the developers made becase of the 3d graphics, and I think it has more of an impact than they realize. Combine this with event notification system that only provides three or four quickly fading lines of info at a time, and does not allow you to review what has happened between turns, and you now really have to pay attention to every square of land you own on each turn, or risk the enemy slipping deep into your territory before you notice them.

Sum total, I think CIV is the best game of the series to date, but I just wish they would have scrapped the 3d engine, or been given more time to improve it so that it does not detract from the gameplay.

 

[Sisonpyh]

Civ 2 is a better game. No debating it. If you dissagree, you probably never even played it.

But Civ 4 will surpass it once it reaches it's modding potential. As of right now, Civ 4 just doesn't have the 'Civ' feel. It is less epic. The only thing that can even hold my attention is the Fall from Heaven mod.

 

[DaviddesJ]

This leads me to something that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The fact that the AI moves are no longer followed in this version.

It's not mentioned because it's not true. You can choose whether or not to show enemy moves.

Combine this with event notification system that only provides three or four quickly fading lines of info at a time, and does not allow you to review what has happened between turns

This isn't true, either. You can review the messages.

 

[Kerrang]

It's not mentioned because it's not true. You can choose whether or not to show enemy moves.

And you don't have to set aside time for the AI to make all its moves before you move anymore.

Whether it is true or not, it was mentioned, though from a different perspective.

This isn't true, either. You can review the messages.

Now that you have shown me the error of my ways, maybe you can provide instruction on how this is done?

Honestly, I have looked for this option, and have not been able to find it, throw me a bone. As far as showing enemy moves, it was not an option I had gone looking for, I will look around for it, but if you want to clue me in there as well, I would appreciate it.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Kerrang... if you would have not read Aussie_Lurker, I bet you would never have come up with this kind of **** in the first place...

My attitude is not strange a bit, I have a solid opinion about what I'm talking about, and I have my picture of the players who are around here... no offense really... you stick to it or not, that's all.

You can give your advice, but for GOD SAKE; don't call me anything...

Sisonpyh: good one mate.

 

[Kerrang]

Kerrang... if you would have not read Aussie_Lurker, I bet you would never have come up with this kind of **** in the first place...

You are quite wrong, AL said pretty much exactly what I was feeling by the time I got to that post, and if he hadn't posted it, I would have.

My attitude is not strange a bit, I have a solid opinion about what I'm talking about, and I have my picture of the players who are around here... no offense really... you stick to it or not, that's all.

I never said your attitude was strange, I said it was obnoxious and grating, I live in the US, I find nothing strange about that kind of attitude, I see it every day. You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't have a problem with you sticking to your guns. It is the fact that you insult others and then can't seem to take it without calling in the mods, that I have a problem with.

You can give your advice, but for GOD SAKE; don't call me anything...

I didn't call you anything, I just made an observation about your attitude in this thread. If you are worried about name calling, perhaps you should check your own back yard first, and apologize to all those people who you referred to as "Civ Dorks" (anyone who does not agree with you in this thread).

 

[Smidlee]

What finally a person who says this delay never happens?.

I didn't say it never happens but stated I haven't notice any delay. Maybe it's where I used to playing games online where delay (lag) is part of playing multiplayer. So I have notice delay when I'm playing civ4 multiplayer (as with any pc game online) but not as single player games. I'm being honest when I state "I notice no delay in unit movement. I can move units a lot faster and easier than I ever could with civ2. civ2 pathfinder suck while civ4 IMO has an excellent pathfinder. It even shows the path a unit will take along with the how many turns it will take to get there. I can click a location and the unit /stacks of units will instantly move there. Again if there is a delay it pretty small compare to playing games online.

Wait Smid is that you? Your the same guy who gets 20 minutes waiting times in Civ3 remember that argument?. this was all on your 3.8 2gb 7800 "MIDDLE RANGE "pc. what argument were trying to quell with that line?

I just saw a $1,000 tower at best buy which had AMD 4200+ plus 2GB of ram. add a graphic card and you got a mid-range pc with a better processor than mine. A top end pc would have a dual Pci-express. twin 6800/7800 for example.
I stated those 20 minutes turns was the WW2 scenarios I try playing hoping civ3 would run faster with a dual-core (but it didn't). Civ4 runs a lot faster than civ3 does with those big scenarios/ huge maps. It maybe because Civ4 could be multithreaded and civ3 isn't.

funny you never noticed what everyone else has,even the guys with 3.0 processors . Well mybe thats what I need to get that problem to stop, A mid range PC , but you opinions are a perfectly legit representation of the Civ4 sorry brought that up

If civ4 is multithreaded like Galciv2 is then a dual-core processor (2gh+) will be faster and smoother than single 3 Gh processor. If civ4 isn't then the 3 gh may be faster.