I stink at this game

[Lars_Domus]

Personally, I find Mario Kart infuratingly more difficult than any of the Civ games...

I don't think there's anything to be said here that Sisiutil hasn't already.

 

[King Jason]

If you can beat the game on noble then you don't stink at it. Since it's the "normal" difficulty. You may not be an expert if you can't get past it - but that's fine. You'd stink at the game if you couldn't beat settler/chieftan.

And personally, to the "Too hard" debate. Personally, I find civ to be too easy. But then again, I'm not a newcomer to it and I was a young kid when I got into it so I can't exactly remember how hard it was back then. Civ is practically 2nd nature to me.

In any case, chin up chap, you're doing well.

 

[Cosmichail]

It's just a game and people should play it at the level they are comfortable with. If I am in a don't feel like MM'ing like crazy I play Prince, if I feel like a bit of a challenge I go for Monarch. If I feel like having fun with the barbies I play Emperor with raging barbs. I do participate quite a bit in SG's and have learned a ton of stuff from them improving from Prince to Emperor. Each map/settings is unique meaning small maps are much easier to defeat than larger ones. Get a start with two sea resources/gold/floodplains and you're laughing. In the long run I find the most important factor in this game is two things: City growth and tech trading.

Just be comfortable with what you like playing at.

 

[Naokaukodem]

you can have good games and bad games at the same level.

That's why one should be able to choose among a wide variety of difficulty levels, rather than the 2-3 firsts. Instead of playing again and again the same level, with a chance of playing the exact same game than right before, you would slightly increasing the difficulty level, as a progress. So in any way the game would be harder. From Dan Quayle to the top end game leaders, should be real difficulty levels IMO.

at the higher levels, [...] you have to rely on tactics that some people consider "tricks", like chop- and pop-rushing, slingshots, and so on.[...]

This is my whole point. I don't consider this kind of gameplay-like mechanics as fun nor obvious. "To play Civ, you must cut trees and kill your own people, and we made tree more valuable to make the decision to cut them stealther." At least, they should not be a must have in order to win the higher difficulty levels. If players want to use them, there is the multiplayer, or the scoring system -did the developpers forget it?-.

To a large extent, these tactics are needed because the AI at the higher levels has an "unfair" advantage and you need to claw your way back somehow in order to compete. Saying the AI is not smart enough is a legitimate beef about the game

That too, it would be interesting the AI to be smarter/more experienced with the increasing difficulty, rather than simply more advantaged. It would make the whole game a lot more interesting. And too it would make the AI less overwhelmingly superior of course. And the AI never quits, and you can find as many AIs you want for a game at any time without connection problems and with instantaneous gaming.

What I like in this thread is that the OP stated from the start that having a too hard game is detrimental. No need to proove it further to sceptical players. It has been stated in the title: "Do I stink"? Not only that's detrimental by itself, but this is relevant of that something's wrong with the game. And what's wrong has been explained by myself before: you don't have for your money of the game you bought, because 3 playable difficulty levels only are not enough to jump from one to another, and you won't want to play at the higher of them over and over as the games may look alike. You will simply... abandon it precociously -well, that's what the majority of people are doing-, and see it as an unachieved game. Come on, didn't you wait more of this game?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Why is a challenging game a defect?

I like challenge. This is precisely why I don't consider to have completed Civ4, and why I see it as an unachieved game. I like to go deeper in the things.

But there... there's something beyond a simple entertaining game challenge.

I guess it is like that with some games and some people.

 

[franlato]

Man, slavery have been in for a long time now... it's not like wiping people to build a pyramid is new ...

and in europe they did cut all the forest to develop...

they are not dishonorable, they are part of the game, much like building muskets to avoid a low culture but High wall medieval enemy civilization

if you kill people in a city for a wonder that will slingshot you to the top I think you are smart

what is the name of the guy who have a site with games of his as little story??
I think he his pretty neat and I learned a lot from him, using all I have at hand to get myself out of a bad situation... like going for nationhood/police state when two or three AI declare war on me or wiping people to build a pyramid

 

[Oddible]

Word to Sisiutil - pretty much nailed it. It seems Naokaukodem sees the difficulty levels in the game not like difficulty levels but as a path where you are supposed to start at 1 and go to 8 "to have completed Civ4". If that were the intent of the game, I would agree that the game is a failure and totally flawed. However, I don't believe that CIV was ever designed to be that kind of game.

Specifically, there are people who very much enjoy micromanaging Civ games, down to minutia and a level of math that I would struggle to call a 'game'. The massive number of Civ fans that enjoy this style of game play have encouraged Firaxis to produce a game that will satisfy both the casual gamer and the hard-core micromanager.

I see it as an unachieved game.

For those folks who enjoy the casual game, just play at the level that you are comfortable, which challenges you, and at which you're having fun. That is the point. For some it is Settler, for Some it is Deity. For those that have the time, energy and mindset to seriously pound the numbers, this game can satisfy those folks too. It is selfish to suggest that unless the game is designed so you can beat it, that it is a flawed game.

Now, as far as which tactics one considers 'cheating' that is a completely different topic. Chopping forests to finish building something quicker? Sounds pretty close to real world. Slavery? Whipping and killing to finish things quicker? Sounds like real world to me. Civ IV achieves a level of AI and playability that exceeds previous versions in limiting exploits and encouraging fair play.

Its already been said a bunch of times... play the level where you are comfortable and have fun - ignore the higher levels - they don't make you a n00b because you aren't the uberl33tzor. You don't need to defeat Deity to 'Complete Civ IV'.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But I don't want to play a game where I'm pretty sure to win, because there is no suspense. On the other hand, I'm pissed off to see I can't catch up with the AI. The difficulty levels are too different from one to another and there is not enough of them IMO. The normal pace of the game is IMO to climb the levels, one after the other, and then yes, you completed it, at least you made enough challenging games, not too easy or too hard ones, because that's the way it is in actual Civ4.

Beside that, the fact that chops and pop rushes are "realistic" is not taken into consideration here. It is just that they don't seem to be a very natural way of gameplay to me. Nothing to do with reality. You should be free not to use it even at higher levels. Those who use it would just have a better score and better multiplayer results. That's still not that bad. You should simply not have to use them. Civ is supposed to be a game of freedom of choice after all.

 

[dh_epic]

Now you're talking some sense.

I might agree with you that forest chopping needs to be a little less of a 'no brainer'.

I'd definitely agree with you that some 'in between' difficulty levels couldn't hurt.

 

[franlato]

Now you're talking some sense.

I might agree with you that forest chopping needs to be a little less of a 'no brainer'.

I'd definitely agree with you that some 'in between' difficulty levels couldn't hurt.

prince is in between noble and monarch no?
sometime it just don't stop

it would be the "Aristocrat" level and you would have -1,5 instead of 1 or 2 as a handicap

I understand the point, myself, in NHL 06, I play a game at normal and win 10 to 1 (and a game of hockey often finish like 2 - 1) and if I go up 1 level the computer beat me 10 - 1. But in this kind of game there's 3 difficulty level!
in cIV we have settler, chieftain, warlord, noble, prince, monarch, emperor, and deity

I think that every level you go up need an ajustement, myself I went from monarch to emperor and I found out that the barbs are way stronger.. so I forgot my old tactic of ignoring completely early military and managed to discover techs like Bronze working for axes or archery for archer... but, I mean, if you decide that early military is not fun and too stressful then stay at monarch, and if it's way to easy, try different civs where youre old tactics are no longer good or try different maps, (like glacial ones) where it's a chalange to find a good spot

sure, if you have a really good tactic that work well at prince and stick to it in monarch and find it doesn't work, it kind of the point of a "strategy" game to find a new "strategy"

 

[huntjm]

You think u stink at this game? I've had Civ IV since January and I've never beaten the game on Noble - not even a points victory. I played it last night on Warlord level and had to retire around 976AD I was doing so crap!
I understand the concept of the game and I've won many a game on settler / chieftain but only with a points or space victory. I've only ever once won a diplomatic victory. I've never won conquest or domination!
It's just too damn complicated!

 

[Zebra 9]

I have never completed a game and played just about every level, I found it to dull, slow boring, & to easy.

Well right know I'm playing a MOD where I added more levels, more maps, & fixed the unit vals. I absolutley love it.

You know why they made Civ4 Modable, so you could fix it so you would like it.

So shut your mouths & start moding. If you don't know how to MOD there is plenty in the Creation & Custimization. That is exactly what I did.

Oh, and you don't need to know Python.

I'll let you know, I don't mind cutting forests or using slavery to hurry produnction, but I absolutly dispise bashing of anything or anyone. I belive it is wrong. So please stop.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I absolutly dispise bashing of anything or anyone. I belive it is wrong. So please stop.

I do not bash anybody or anything here, just giving my opinion. Do you have an opinion? You think Civ4 is good (with mods), I think it is not so good, that's called opinions. The only worrying fact here is that we are in presence of people that can't stand to hear what they are not prepared to hear: something like the truth. However, pretty everybody here explicitely or implicitely recognized that Civ4 IS a (too) hard game, except for you.
Simply, Civ4 should have more playable level by everybody, not only 3.

Now do the mod you are refering to has such levels? If yes I guess you will have to tell the name of the mod you play at.

 

[Sisiutil]

Naokaukodem, I respect you, your opinion, and your right to voice it. But I would caution you against making what sounds like staking a claim to "the TRUTH (tm)". You're voicing an opinion, and doing it truthfully, as you have every right to do, but claiming it to be an objective truth that applies to everybody may just be what's getting a few people's backs up. Just a friendly hint there.

I think all of us tend to focus a little too much on the end result instead of the journey, in Civ as in life. This is a game, and that's all about passing time in a fun way. Even if you lose, you can still have a good time getting there. Those sometimes make the best stories to share, just like the best skiing stories are about wipe-outs. I myself don't want or expect to proceed all the way up through the levels, like some 1st person shooter where I have to kill the "boss" on each level. I usually hit a wall in those games where I don't progress any further, which is why I don't play them anymore. Either that or I finish the game all the way through and then never look at it again.

With Civ, even if I eventually hit my "wall" of a level I just can't beat, I know I'll still enjoy the journey, probably most of the time on the level below it. This is because of the biggest thing the Civ series has always had going for it, its "replayability". I say that with confidence because of experiencing exactly that with Civ II, which I played for nearly a decade without once being able to beat the darn thing on Emperor.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well I find few to say back to such a word of wisdom.

Anyway I'm sorry but I will have to say anyway that I precisely encountered this wall in Civ4: the feeling of being totally dominated by the AI with no chance of even survaving, a kind of total humiliation. Though it is true that with tech trading I already won on Monarch (but I was on an big Isle and probably the best of the game with only very valuable cities), in my other Monarch games I feel like it is always the same: I can crush them early but I don't because it would be useless, either me having too many cities, either them reconquering the land. Plus tech trading is really obnoxious as you have to check nearly every turn each AI civ to see what they discovered in the meantime.
I think there is a real problem with this system of city mainteance, as much ideal as it may appear.
As I said earlier, I encounter this wall in Civ4 because IMO the difficulty levels are too much drawn aside: or it is too easy, or it is too hard. There's plenty testimonies of it in this very topic.

 

[microbe]

I'm not trolling. That's just the way it happened. The game is too hard, there is no lame excuses here.... it's hard, period.

Play on Chieftan. If you can't do well at that, well, I have not much to say.

But the fact that you can't win deity easily anymore (unlike civ3) is a good thing, because now there is more variety as different people could enjoy different levels and everyone is happy.

 

[ronnybiggs]

I think Civ4 just has a lot of new concepts, and it's hard to understand them all. The biggest one is diplomacy... you can't just ignore players or declare wars like you used to, and that's a good thing. Of course there are others, like forges -> increased happiness (who knew?) and settlers & workers don't take a pop penalty or food maintenance.

Once you get these concepts down and learn to handle them elegantly, I think Civ4 becomes a much more playable (and historically accurate) game than its predecessors. I'm lovin' it.

 

[ronnybiggs]

Plus tech trading is really obnoxious as you have to check nearly every turn each AI civ to see what they discovered in the meantime.

Not being able to usurp techs from a civ you conquer is one of the annoying parts of this game. Ugh.

 

[Programmer Yare]

Well I find few to say back to such a word of wisdom.

Anyway I'm sorry but I will have to say anyway that I precisely encountered this wall in Civ4: the feeling of being totally dominated by the AI with no chance of even survaving, a kind of total humiliation.

Firaxis had to give the AI a leg up on the harder difficulties because their CPU budget for AI processing wasn't very big. People already complain about how poorly CIV4 runs on the average gaming computer -respectable AI would have to be running constantly in the background (slowing the game considerably), or else take a few minutes at the start of each turn to do all of the processing.

The problem is that AI code is computationally expensive, and it has to run on your main CPU. With graphics processing being handled by a dedicated processor (GPU), AI is the single biggest resource hog in games today.

And then there's how difficult it is to write good AI in the first place, but you could write a doctoral thesis on that issue.

 

[Sisiutil]

Firaxis had to give the AI a leg up on the harder difficulties because their CPU budget for AI processing wasn't very big. People already complain about how poorly CIV4 runs on the average gaming computer -respectable AI would have to be running constantly in the background (slowing the game considerably), or else take a few minutes at the start of each turn to do all of the processing.

The problem is that AI code is computationally expensive, and it has to run on your main CPU. With graphics processing being handled by a dedicated processor (GPU), AI is the single biggest resource hog in games today.

And then there's how difficult it is to write good AI in the first place, but you could write a doctoral thesis on that issue.

Interesting, I hadn't realized that about the AI before, but it makes complete sense. Thanks for contributing that.