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

[Older than Dirt]

After Civ 3 who would be so naiive to think that Civ 4 would be a really great classic? But, it would be nice to have a game that was properly playtested and not have silliness in it such as workers moving faster than cavalry and the space elevator. I do think that the cute little beavers and the elephants are worth the price of the game. Too bad the horses can't roam and there are no magic mushroom resources, eh?

 

[armchairknight]

never mind all the technical arguments...for me its just feel...many have said it already and i whole heartedly agree...civ4 for just feels like a game..i have a very hard time devoloping a dorky imersion into a game..the world feels small..cheesebally and not like a world...does it mean its not a great game..no..not at all..but for it takes away what made civ, civ. for me, from civ 1 and 2 and to some part 3..it was easy to get lost in your game..imagination would run wild and you could honestly feel like you were running a massive and progressive empire.. in civ 4..the game play is just that ..game play..i find that this feeling has been lost by adding so much more to the game..like i said..do i hate civ4 ..no...do i like earlier civs better..no...do i perfer playing earlier civ games..heck yes..why..its all the feeling of running a civ and a world.

thats why many of you have not seen me on this board in sometime..i was soo excited about the game..when it arrived..i felt...cived out.i find it harder to excited about the game then those past...if you need me ..ill be on the civ3 and 2 boards..lol

Happy gaming, Superkrest!

 

[Superkrest]

lol thanks..i hope the expansion will spark my renewed intrest..who knows.

 

[armchairknight]

After Civ 3 who would be so naiive to think that Civ 4 would be a really great classic? But, it would be nice to have a game that was properly playtested and not have silliness in it such as workers moving faster than cavalry and the space elevator. I do think that the cute little beavers and the elephants are worth the price of the game. Too bad the horses can't roam and there are no magic mushroom resources, eh?

Who says the horses don't roam? I say they just don't roam far!! How big is a single square? This is a real question, for me, because I'd like to know. However, it's gotta be big, big, big. So maybe they do roam a little.

 

[Superkrest]

i think on a standard map it repersents like 250 square miles.im not sure though..im curious now to.im sure someone has the right answer(i remember the numbers from an old..should there be bridges argument.

 

[armchairknight]

i think on a standard map it repersents like 250 square miles.im not sure though..im curious now to.im sure someone has the right answer(i remember the numbers from an old..should there be bridges argument.

Why, that's positively huge! Thanks for the info.

That'd be, what, about 15 miles to a side? OMG! It takes my starting warriors 50 years to walk 15 miles? That's just way too funny.

 

[T.A JONES]

Lets not insult everyones integrity with a overly exadurated interpertation of the lags they really stated they expierenced playing Civ4 in the late stages. We can't use desperate tactics to refute the reality.
Im sorry the basis of these arguements always come down to" My computer runs Civ4 flawlessly. you can't judge Civ4 performance cuz you obviously have a weaker system.
This was believable months ago when Gamers were unaware of what it takes to run Civ4 smooth.everyone was complaining back then, their system were above or met specs and being plagued by lags but soon its was apparent that it took more then what it says on the box. many patches have come out and many more people have upgraded. All did so trying to give the lastest chapter in the franchise they loved, a fair shot.

I wish we could come to terms that these people have systems that are well above specs. Im not going to gather all the quotes but they all complain of minor lags that are major irritations especially considering what they have forked over in terms of upgrade dollers for one stinkin game to work.
true startegy players who have come to know how well the previous flow complimented gameplay are some of the ones who speak up. The posts who deny any design errors ether have humugously powerful specs, bad expiernce with Civ3 or 2 or a good incentive ( they think their part of the team)

I ve done some decent upgrades I killed the massive lags way back, along with everyone else. but like the guy with the 3.0g said, Civ4 still won't move a unit from tile to tile in a quick(fast as Civ2 or 3) or utilize memory rapid tap sequences in a smooth manner. I mentioned the zoom with the globe view being flawed in the late stages on hige maps, when its needed the most. when I made that comment about the crash test car "zoom zoom crash" I was using anology to raise my point. Why did they release the globe view as it is it failed the crash test so to speak.
I wasn't really saying my computer crashs, I was comparing it to a car that speeds in to a wall (zoom zoom) it lags when I zoom out to space or back,(on packed huge maps) or if it go fast back in and out and sometimes its to dam slow compared to Civ3 when I scroll around the map in late stages as soon as its packed with Civs( on huge map) So many things have to so carefully explained over here or it could fuel a 1000 more of these " you don't got what it takes to play Civ4 your opinion isn't valid posts"

I think this could be a smother blanket used to stop the spread of truth some for some reason, don't want to hear. the numbers don't lie as long as these tactics are used, more and more will speak up. Im not talking about the internet publists and unconformed new age marketing experts who were hired to promote on all fan boards, under allieances or confirmed prior members. Competion is fierce and this place has influence the idea of mock members posting the company line Civ Fan boards dosn't make me feel very comfortable but to rule it out as having ever took place is hard for me sometimes.
I try to understand the motive for others who try to defend some crucial faults with overstated overblown references to other peoples posts who expierence real lag problems on real powerful computers. Its the little glitchs in the important things that have been mentioned, not and I quote " massive MM and lagginess. its the small but repetitive lags that are killing replay value for me.

What evident is many bought this game with the presumtion it would have somewhat of the same feel and performance in fundamental strategy concepts. clearly a portion of sales were raked in on these assumptions. Im talking about simple unit movements. Its a fundamental aspect when your moving thousands of units throughout your game. it comes up a lot in a marathon epic. I for one ws thinkin simple unit moves would have been as fast as in the past, or at least improve after my upgrades. Its the first thing and really one of the few things that didn't.

Someone did a good job of convicing those who expierenced any lag they were the minute minority My last upgrade was in vain, because what I craved, those sharp responses from earlier versions can't be captured with more upgrades. Its embedded deep in the design of the game.

As I said before the modding aspects hold the key for me. it might be fixable with a lower animated unit or something Civ 3 like...

 

[Naokaukodem]

Honestly Naokaukodem, I thought you made some good points about Civ II, but your endless snivelling, and railing against others who disagree with you is borrrrrrrrring. YOu like Civ II fine - go play it

I'm just trying to answer other people questions here, and keep sure the topic stay proper. That's all my point. No need to get CRAZY and do personnal attacks because I'm trying to answer people. I don't want flaming here. I know too much how a topic can degenerate with only one guy coming and flaming the first poster... now if you call it boring, I agree, but I see it as absolutely necessary. And again -boring reminder-, here is not a game place!

 

[Commander Bello]

Hmmmm,,,,,,,,

In 5 pages of rants what has really been decided is that CIV 4 is NOT the absolutely most perfectly fabulously wonderful game they thought it would be and are so irreconcilably crushed so that their life is now not worth living, but before they commit Hari Kari (please consult Tokagawa for technique) they must inflict as much shrieking, wailing, whining, sniveling and gnashing of teeth etc., on others to make them feel the same way they do.

Others have respectfully, for the most part, have disagreed running the gamut from total infatuation to presenting problems with their hardware.

Honestly Naokaukodem, I thought you made some good points about Civ II, but your endless snivelling, and railing against others who disagree with you is borrrrrrrrring. YOu like Civ II fine - go play it

Unfortunately, i have to quote this crap as above.
Here, we have the perfect example of one of the whining little fanboys, who just cannot accept that somebody doesn't love mommy's present as much as they do.

1. The title of the thread already indicates that the intention was not to praise Civ4 as the best possible piece of software. So, if you feel being bored by such a topic, why do you come here?. Go, play Civ4 and don't troll around here.
2. The pure fact that somebody finds positive aspects in Civ2 compared with Civ4 does not disqualify him as one who would like to love Civ4 as much - if only the flaws - may the be actually or only in his view be present - would allow him.

And that is already too much time spent on the above quoted poster who was not picking up one single argument, but was enriching the world by his statement that he feels bored when being confronted with arguments he just cannot accept.

 

[Commander Bello]

[... removed paragraphs about civics...]
Also, although resources can HELP you to get a Wonder, they are not the be-all and end-all. For starters, you can always get them in trade if you practice decent diplomacy skills. Even without the resource, though, you can get the Wonders anyway via a good use of specialists and forest-chopping.
Also, I would very much disagree that terrain improvements are situational. Sure there are some tied directly to resources, but again I often find myself having tough choices between different terrain improvement types. Certainly more choices than simply build a mine or build a farm-as was the case in Civ2 and Civ3.

For starters, your argumentation above is plainly invalid.
Whatever you do by (micro-)managing your towns, chopping your forests, fostering your specialists, chosing your best leader at the beginning, as far as wonder construction is concerned, certain ressources just reduce the build time to 2/3.
Second, to the best of my experience, ressources like marble and stone are very scarce. Yet, for quite some of the early wonders, it would be helpful to have them. At this early point of time, though, you most times have no guarantee to be in contact with the nation which owns them (and would be willing to trade them, so would have to have TWO deposits of those!).
Personally, I don't have any problem with this, as it adds to the fun and the goad of the game.

Nevertheless, your argumentation is invalid, for the reasons I have pointed out. And that is one of the most annoying parts in following your argumentations, Aussie_Lurker. Being a native speaker (as I assume) you fluently state "examples" by which you defend certain design decisions.
At first glance, this seems to strengthen your point of view.

Yet, if one looks behind the storefront, it becomes obvious that you just explain something completely different, which often is only loosely linked to the topic you seem to be talking about.
One of those examples we find in the above quotation of yours, another can be found somewhere here in this thread where you praise the calculatively correct number of 3125 combinations of civics. Yet, as someone already answered, at any given point of time in the game, only so many combinations would be meaningful.

[...]
I also hear about massive MM and lagginess. Well, sorry, but that is NOT my personal experience. For starters, unlike in Civ2 and 3, you DON'T need to build 6,000 cities in order to have a reasonable chance of victory, so that means you have to manage far fewer cities. If that is too much, then you can automate to the nth degree (and, I have noticed, the AI actually LISTENS to my suggestions re automation). Also, with the build queue-as in civ3-you can 'set and forget' the bulk of your cities, unlike in Civ2 where you had to go and check on your cities every 4-5 turns.

'Lagginess' of units movements should not be influenced by the number of cities you have to manage, as for the response time of the engine it should be completely insignificant how many cities there are.
Second, some people just like the feeling of managing EMPIRES, not little areas.
I agree with you that Civ4 can be played on small maps. This is obvious, as well as it is obvious that a countable fraction of players would like to play on bigger maps.
Some of them might even like to have the control about where a new citizen will be placed. Yet, the game doesn't support this! As has been mentioned earlier already, there is no notification about a new citizen being spawned in your cities. Why not? Why not, if we get information about Hadruf being born in Ihavenocluewherethistownis?
The argumentation with the building-queues seems very much to hit yourself. What does it help me to have building-queues if I am going - as you did mention it over and over - to specialize my cities?

So, forgive me, but I estimate your argumentations invalid once more.

In many ways, in spite of all the extra choices this game DOES offer-as I have shown-the degree of randomness is actually probably less than in previous iterations. Why? Well because there are more things you-the player-can do to boost your chances of success. As I said above, you want a better chance of building a Wonder-well seek out the resources for them and/or specialise your cities for extra hammers-and cut a few forests for good measure.

As I have shown above already, it is the ressources, not the specialization which gives you an ADDITIONAL boost. Second, it might happen that some of the ressources are not just waiting behind the next hill to be claimed by your units.
Therefore, once again, your advice seems to point to way out of the dilemma, but actually does not.

Want a better chance of victory in combat? Well choose the right civics, build a barracks and select promotions which you think will be best for your upcoming battles.

Which would and does lead to micro-management, again.
And one could very well argue about the fact if a promotion being chosen for one battle couldn't turn out against you at the next battle.

To make it clear once again (as I know that some people will try to confute me by saying "if you don't like it, then leave it") I don't face a problem with this kind of micro-management. Yet, it still constitutes a fact of micro-management.

[....]However, at the end of the day-and I speak for a large section of the Australian online community here-I can honestly say that IMO this is a GREAT GAME.

Now, please allow me to go into semantics as well. Do you now speak for a large section of the Australian online community, or do you speak for yourself?
As far as I understand it, in the first case you should have honestly said that in THEIR opinion... In the second case ("IMO") you shouldn't have tried to strengthen your argumentation with alleged invisible supporters behind your back.

I know that you very early have decided to love this game, as we have had many disputes one year ago, already. This is absolutely o.k. with me, but please don't bash other people for forgetting the infamous "IMO" every second sentence, and at the same time "proving" your argumentation with examples which don't refer to the case.

It is not a BRILLIANT game, however, and can do with improvement-but it is still the most fun Civ experience I have had since Civ1 first hit the scene. Now, if you don't like it, I would suggest this has less to do with the GAME itself, and more to do with the kind of game experience you personally are after. If it doesn't meet your expectations, then by all means play a game which is more your cup of tea.

Aussie_Lurker.

I congratulate you to having so much fun with Civ4 (and this isn't ironic). Actually, I spend quite some hours with it as well (making use of mods which tune it more into the direction of an epic game).
And I agree with you: it is better than Civ3/PTW/C3C without mods. Yet, based on what has been promised prior to release, it lacks many things. A lot of other items I have to regard as being imbalanced and apparently almost untested.

Therefore, in many areas it doesn't provide the fun which was promised it would provide. After 15 years of this genre, being made by the company of the original inventor, being based on the input of the whole community, not to mention the many, many beta-testers, I think we could have expected more than was delivered.

End of rant.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I have decided that this will be my final word on this subject, as I find this debate is too distracting from my many hours of civ-playing .
Anyway, I can only speak from my OWN epxeriences, and all of those can only be described as positive (well, except when some cruel barbarian captures my cities j/k) This is even MORE the case when I compare it to my Civ2 experiences-which were always negative. The end game in particular was always incredibly samey, and the level of MM involved was always extreme.
The key reason I have found less issues with MM in Civ4 is simply because I am able to do so much more-with so much less-than in Civ2 or Civ3. Sure unit promotions may require direct intervention (yet only certain units ever need anything other than automated promotions), but I find that I can wage a successful war with less than 1/3rd of the units I needed in Civ2 and Civ3.
The same goes with cities. As I said above, I found the only way I could ever win in Civ2 and 3 was to build scores of cities-cities I HAD to closely manage. If I ran out of room to expand in these games, then I would usually simply give up because I KNEW I couldn't win from that position (after having been proven right too often). Now I can get ahead with anywhere from 6-20 cities, and I have managed to fight my way up from well behind-even in MP games.
Fewer cities, a good build queue and what I feel is a better automation AI has led to almost non-existent MM-even in the modern age.
Again, my EXPERIENCES with Wonders is that I HAVE managed to beat out competitors to early Wonders-without access to Marble or Stone-simply through specialisations and chopping. Again, this is the case even in MP games. It is certainly a lot better than a system where you either can or can't build a Wonder-purely based on resource access.
Lastly, I don't simply speak for myself in this. I am in regular, direct communication with a large number of online Australian Civ players. When we aren't discussing strategy (which, in Civ4, we at least CAN discuss ) we are all discussing the high production values of Civ4 AND how much fun we have playing it-though the proof is in the 8 hour Marathon games which we often play on the weekends.
As I have said repeatedly, this is not to say I am totally satisfied with Civ4, or that I don't think the game doesn't need to be improved in many areas. It is simply that, compared to ALL my previous Civ experiences, this one is definitely my most positive and fun. In the end, isn't that ALL any of us can go on?
Enjoy the rest of your debate-I have a Civ game to play .

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[JustAnotherUser]

(Marking by me)
I don't think it is based on the computer.
I run the game on a decent machine (P4 3.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 2 6600 GS gfx cards in SLI-mode, 800 FSB, 533 RAM and so on and so on... ). For sure a machine which should be sufficient to make the game respond in time.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't. Latest after reaching the industrial area, the game becomes SLOW. Units will stop their animation for !/3 of a second, units will end their turn (take a seat and have a coffee) before you can do anything else and so on. Manouvring your ships or unts via numpad becomes a major pain.

Saving and reloading after you have played for appr. 3 hours will help, yet not very much since the lags will reappear.

I understand and have never complained about the inter-turn delays. These are fine and actually show that certain routines have been drastically improved compared with the ones of Civ3. Yet, it is in the player's own turn, when the game becomes slooooow.

Here for sure is quite some room for code optimization.

I had this problem and after some try I noticed two things

1) go in civlization4.ini and put
DynamicUnitPaging and DynamicAnimPaging to 0. this helped me A LOT with the end game slugginesh.

2) a lot of virtual memory helps, too, but I have only 1gig so maybe you don't need it.

Now if only I could find something for those choppy movies.

 

[Kerrang]

Second, to the best of my experience, ressources like marble and stone are very scarce.

This is one thing that I never really understood, why is Stone such a scarce resource? Is there any significant area of land in the entire world where you do not have almost immediate acces to stone (IRL)? Marble, I can see, as it is a specific variety of stone, but it just doesn't make sense to have Stone as a resource in this game, much less as scarce of a resource as it is.

That being said, I typically do not have a problem getting early wonders (with or without Stone or Marble), if it is something I set my mind to. In most games in which I think I might be headed for a cultural victory, or want to emphasize culture, I nearly always have Stonehenge built before I have even researched Masonry, and seldom has the AI beat me to it (I am currently playing on Prince).

 

[zeeter]

Civ2: People had strategies that were sure-fire wins. Plant as many cities as possible then run all over the enemy. Simple.

Civ3: It's a little tougher to plant so many cities, but people can do it. Especially after they gave the option in a patch to turn off culture flipping.

Civ4: There is no specific strategy that is a sure-fire win. At least not yet. There was chop-rushing, but that got nerfed. Civ2 people can't figure out a strategy. Because they can't figure it out, they say that the game isn't as good as Civ2. They can't win every time. Must be Civ4's fault.

 

[T.A JONES]

In CIv3 the world size can be expanded to real empire size proportions. what goes along with that is a tactical propablem called logistics. I start like everyone else with one city on a massive sheet of land, separated from half my competion by vast seas. I can not bring the fight over to them without first learning ocean transportation. By this time my competion has grow to an equally massive size. If I attack one of these giant nations I must devote my cities to full unit production. During this time while I build for overseas war All the other Civs can be build up culture, economy improvements whatever. Now by the time Im finished with one of these super sized nations another that has been spared has grown much stronger in culture economy or space race.

You see how I can multiply this dilemma by however amount of Civs up to 31 or any type of land size and the trouble surmounts. I always elimate the domation victory and am always far more challenged then you make things out. I wish Civ4 could be taken to the same levels but it can't

 

[armchairknight]

Civ2: People had strategies that were sure-fire wins. Plant as many cities as possible then run all over the enemy. Simple.

Civ3: It's a little tougher to plant so many cities, but people can do it. Especially after they gave the option in a patch to turn off culture flipping.

Civ4: There is no specific strategy that is a sure-fire win. At least not yet. There was chop-rushing, but that got nerfed. Civ2 people can't figure out a strategy. Because they can't figure it out, they say that the game isn't as good as Civ2. They can't win every time. Must be Civ4's fault.

In fact, this is the single biggest reason why I love Civ IV. When I played the earlier Civs, I did just as you say. I carpeted every square of land I could with my vastly undeveloped cities. Now, in Civ IV, I really develop the living crap out of my cities. Go figure. Personally, the only things that I truly miss from Civ II is the High Council and the Palace. I'd love to see those brought back. I think you might be right about some of the Civ II fans, but, IMHO, there's just as many reasons to love a game as there are people to love that game.

 

[T.A JONES]

Its agreeable a vastly undeveloped strategy sounds boring, why do you play like that. I build Citys not a bunch of hickvilles.

I guess everyone does like playing their own way. Seriously Im not sure, once a easy way has been found to expliot a AI weakness has the time come to repeatly drive it home till you vimit? or is it better if you switch up the conditions or varibles to suit a better challange. Really? Cause Im refering to both games, cause they both got weak AI's if you want to knit pick vannila gameplay, but thats what moddings all about

In Civ4 I found I was just press'n the turn button and I winning the space race without dropping the gloves once! I swear anyone could pull of a win by just building a few citys and then just going with the flow. Thats my secet to beating that game. So one guy carpets with a bunch of underdevloped citys and then turtles up in the sequal, If you like one style more thats cool its all in what you dig man.

I love big maps I don't get the 20 minute please waits... but if Empires were a bother, I'd raise the food taken by each pop point, then make more resources extra juicy and have the strategy move towards key city placement.
Its never been a game of spreading li towns around for me. First its the dash for real estate then the techrace starts (weapons race follows). Hickville spamming gets me nilch

Ive seen it all been done, and done well. I like large and in charge. Call it sprawlin but its whats best for me. As long as its mixed with the M O D, CIV 4 will always feel like its Mini-me, well you know, when its standin next to three.
Im out, Later

 

[T.A JONES]

In Civ4 you can watch the AI units walk around aimlessly, its a option just like in Civ3(not sure bout 2) If you were wondering why you never see AI vs AI 'war reports', its becuse theyve been blacked out. Thats the part you were missing I bet. Like real war footage being censored from CNN Fireaxis saved you from seeing it.

Yes you will still be able to see units moving aimlessly around ( in a rather annoying follow focus).
I never liked watching units move around and not fight. Those settlers working on foreign soil give you an idea of whats getting devloped But the wars were cool to watch. I would plant my spies around the world and moniter the carnage of the warring Civs. I gained knowledge on how each unit did agaist another, or when should I jump in or save my trade partner. Mybe it was time to finish him off before they did.

Some mods I play have 600+ units in some of them. Sometimes the only time I could see a unit in action was on wars fought far from home. I liked to see how wars close to home were going, to see who my new neighbours could be or how strong my old ones are for repelling them Many peolpe like watching the AI duke it out with other AI civs. Its all part of the game for them. One guy over here told me AI vs AI battle sequences were just eyecandy with no stategic benifit whatsoever,.. so I don't expect you all to agree but I thought this did need explaining. Later

Does anyone know if they only censored war reports on low or med detail settings in Civ4 ?. I looked and saw that extra AI movements tend to slow things a bit.( how bad would it getin late stages?) still If anyone knows, I would be happy to find out. I couldn't tell if others were dying sometimes or only leaving the screen. they would just disapear .

As is, this is a real downer for Civ4. On the bright side......
One of my favorites when playing those 'Biggie' mods with over 600+ units is seeing all that smooth War footage my scouts capture. Getting a taste of all that flavour with 100's of crisp battle animations and unique war crys is just a cool sequence, Im sayin its key to the legacy.. I even thought of changing The explorer in Civ3 at the modern age to WAR CORRESPONDANT unit. Of course Id include the great CNN wonder, except that it will spawn ballzy camera crew, like the WW2 ones, who broadcast right in the thick of battle. You get the entire story of carnage as they catch it live on Foreign soil! (satallite phone Tech not required! )

Who wants the pre packaged war messages that now a days the Gov hands outs to the press, its just like Civ4 desighners who hand out those annoying flash annocements ex: ____ (fill in blank) city was destroyed in a far of land ....., BOOO! I want pictures! this is a strategy game and some moving pictures tell a thousand words, or at least a few good nuggets of intelligence. I demand the lift on Foreign censorship, stop leaving my scouts war reports on the cutting room floor! Im tired of CNN reporting I want HBO (uncensored entertainment)

 

[GermanRuler]

uhhhhhhhh...... I vote for CTP 1, just more fun to me

 

[NikG]

We always remember the old days better than they were, because of simple nostalgia. Everything was new. I am when I first tried Civ 1, there was this WOW feeling, never seen before thing. Civ 2 had it too (I only played Civ 1 a year or so, before the sequel came out), and played it up until Civ 3, which is the bottom of the ladder of the series. Either Civ 3 or Civ 4 have this new mythical glow, because we have seen it before. Ask a 16 year old that have only played Civ 3/4, how he/she would see Civ 1/2.

It is simple nostalgia and expectations, noting more, nothing less. Generally play what you like to play.