I stink at this game

[Naokaukodem]

forges -> increased happiness (who knew?)

Sure, who knew...

As to Civ4 difficulty, I strongly believe yet that a good game is a difficulty friendly game, even if that means higher difficulty levels for challenge & fun, the games HAVE to be friendly... not dorky.

 

[ronnybiggs]

If there's one complaint I have about this game, it's how little they document the concepts involved. I can't find jack sh** in the manual - if it weren't for this website I probably wouldn't bother playing it anymore.

 

[Programmer Yare]

If there's one complaint I have about this game, it's how little they document the concepts involved. I can't find jack sh** in the manual - if it weren't for this website I probably wouldn't bother playing it anymore.

I think there's a whole section of the in-game Civilopedia titled "Game Concepts"...

 

[Naokaukodem]

If there's one complaint I have about this game, it's how little they document the concepts involved. I can't find jack sh** in the manual - if it weren't for this website I probably wouldn't bother playing it anymore.

Hell man, that's so true, I can't agree more. If at least those concepts were documented, like that:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=178880

Or even in tutorials or in the Civilopedia/manual... it could make all the differance!

 

[Older than Dirt]

I was having almost the same problem as the OP mentioned in the start of this thread. I decided that at my age life is too short to screw around playing on large or huge maps at epic speed and finding out after a couple of weeks of play that there is not one stinking stone (or maybe marble, or maybe bronze or etc.) on the whole continent. Also I got sick of looking at all the ugly mountains and deserts that cannot be worked. (There is no gold in the Rockies? There are no gems or minerals in the desert?) So I now just use World Builder to modify the maps and select from several. I have a poor memory so there is not much of an advantage for me. The scenarios in Civ 4 vanilla are pretty lame - the 1000 A.D. being OK, but Europe is so small it gives me the creeps - especially with all those ugly mountains. It is only the thrill of hearing the money fall into the shrines' donation boxes that makes it all worth while. Otherwise, I'd just play Civ 2.

 

[TyranusBonehead]

Civ 4 and Warlords are indeed challenging games. I've just about given up on the idea that I will ever be "good" at it (see my nick for my opinion of my Civ'ing abilities). I do go through periods where I get so frustrated that I feel maybe I should go back to playing role-playing games, but I always drift back to Civ4. I like the game quite alot, and I guess that's why I always come back....and when I do come back, I try to figure out what I did wrong before and do better, which is where CFC comes in. Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

 

[gibbie99]

Wow. So much anger in what I had thought would be an ignored post.

I made this post because I'd just quit out of a Prince game that I thought was going well. I'd given myself a nice start, had my pyramid built, founded christianity, and had started and won two little wars with neighbors for a couple cities a piece. I had the top score and was ahead of the AI in techs. Then three civs declared on me at once and ended up destroying all my infrastructure and all but two cities.

Yeah I agree w/ you, I suck too. And I have a PhD, so I am not stupid. The game is just complex, very complex. I can do well on Warlord so I am happy about that. I guess I like games taht are hard and challenging, and I guess you do too. I like the fact that at harder levels things like the above will happen; the AI blind-sides you. To me that means the game has growth potential; what I mean is that you can play it for 100s of hours and still feel enjoying, whereas with first person shooters, the enjoyment time is much much less.

 

[Zebra 9]

Just because you can't win does not make you stupid. It just means that you are not good at civ4. Come on I'm realy good at Civ4 (I don't mean to brag), I can tell a computer to do this and that and yet I can't play the Card Game Hearts, I lose every time.

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.

I have not completed it yet and I would have to know if the 1.09 Civ 4 XML is compatible with higher versions.

 

[FuRRie]

Some people will always be better at a game then other no matter how much you play.
For Civilization you need to able to think about a lot of things at the same time, and put all the factors to a good use. Some people are just better at doing so then other.
If you read stoires of people beating Emperor without too much trouble and you just manage to defeat Noble, that doens't mean you stink at the game, you just play it on your own level.

 

[Sub]

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.

I fault Firaxis for this regardless. Why does the game run poorly? Could it be because we have an unneeded 3d engine? I don't know, but what I do know is that that sure as hell doesn't help. This was the only game of Civ I needed to upgrade for to play. One of the great things about Civilization was that any computer could run it, now that's gone.

Anyway, I personally feel Civilization 4 is too hard. I've been playing Civ 2 and 3 since they both came out and I have a hard time playing Civ 4. I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying it's just too hard.

 

[Veritass]

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.

Note to Firaxis: with dual-core CPUs becoming extremely popular now, maybe there is a way to separate the AI "thinking" from the rest of the game play? Takes more planning and more coordination to run on multiprocessors, but maybe this is worth it.

 

[Sisiutil]

In future versions, perhaps Firaxis could include options on how much system resources to give to the AI, similar to some of the controls available to down-/upgrade graphics. Then folks with a suitiably powerful machine (or those willing to be patient) could give the AI more CPU cycles in order to be a more equal opponent.

 

[gibbie99]

In future versions, perhaps Firaxis could include options on how much system resources to give to the AI, similar to some of the controls available to down-/upgrade graphics. Then folks with a suitiably powerful machine (or those willing to be patient) could give the AI more CPU cycles in order to be a more equal opponent.

That is how you set the AI option with Bridge programs such as Bridge Baron. Most of you probably don't know, bridge is a card game, but a very complex one (like Civ!). So the more time the AI has to think, the hard it is. AI is already pretty smart enough in that sort of setting, since there are only a certain amount of cards available.

Also if you want a AI challenge, play Galactic Civilizations; there are no AI bonuses at higher levels, but, ie tech trading gets more expensive for the human. The AI simply gets smarter at higher levels. But its a visually ugly and simple game; they spent much time on the AI, and the fact that it's multi-threaded and continuosly running in the background. Just something to think about.

 

[Programmer Yare]

Note to Firaxis: with dual-core CPUs becoming extremely popular now, maybe there is a way to separate the AI "thinking" from the rest of the game play? Takes more planning and more coordination to run on multiprocessors, but maybe this is worth it.

The problem is that the game industry follows certain established (code) design patterns that are tried and true, guaranteed to run well, and be extensible and maintainable.

Multithreaded code sucks to program and maintain and such, and there's not a whole lot of precedent or established patterns in the area of multithreading game subsystems. With all these fancy dual core and quad core processors coming out I imagine that area will see some pioneering in the next few years.