But even if you can't make the AI smarter, it's a negative way of thinking to ban this kind of stuff. Leave these things in, and players that want to abuse the AI can do so. Players that disapprove of such behaviour can just exercise self-control. Is that so hard? Does it really need developer intervention?
Well, they kind of had to ban this stuff though because with four they built it from the ground up for multiplayer. Something that was tacked on in 3. Since part 1 I always thought this game shouted multiplayer. 2 didn't get it put in and then 3 did it but it seemed more as an experiment than an full force addition. It seems to me they put multiplayer in 3 to try it out moreso than anything else. It is actually only 1 step off from direct ip connection with all the limitations almost.
Civ 4 was made to go with heavy duty game lobby traffic. Heck go online with FfH and its just as busy as the standard game. Because of this type of online community it is better for gameplay to ban such actions against the AI. Otherwise the game quickly turns into who can exploit rape the AI harder and faster than anyone else as anyone who plays Civ 3 online can attest to.
As for the micromanaging stuff, it is still there but it has a different angle on it. In Civ 3 if you didn't micromanage - you were penalized. As in you LOST stuff. In Civ 4 if you don't micromanage all you lose is oppurtunity, not resources. (Perhaps an oppurtunity to gain more resources but you don't waste anything is my point.) Overflow alone fixed that. Instead in 4 if you DO micromanage the game rewards you instead of punishing you for not doing it. SO basically in 3 you micromanage to not lose stuf, in 4 you micromanage to get MORE stuff. Sure this helps the poor sap that doesn't want to micromanage, but if you like micromanaging I don't see how you can claim that CIv 4 has none. It's more of a reward you for doing it system instead of a do it so you dont get punished system.
If you don't micromanage you are never moving above noble in Civ 4 period. And you are going to struggle on noble at that.
From 3 I miss troops walking through your territory and seas. And that is about it. Pre-astronomy naval warfare could use some work in 4. Past that there isn't much I miss about 3 anymore and I can set those aside.
I think that is what is confusing katipunero. I agree with alot of what he has said if not all of it. If someone doesn't want to micromanage a game shouldn't punish them for that.
-they got rid of most of the need for any micro-managing
-it tells you what to do most of the time
-and the techs and money basically run themselves which means you really cant get behind
Micro: The need for micro is even higher. Considering managing GP, diplomacy (which matters moreso now than before) commerce, espionage, coorperation resources and spread of, city specialization, military promotions, health/happiness, all new aspects added to the game that require attention. And thats if you plan to not pay attention to religion which I wouldn't advise per se but you can ignore it quite often and be fine.
Advisors: It may suggest what you should do but you shouldn't listen to them. You should know that with 3. Open any advisor screen in 3 and they are "telling you what to do".
As for the third one I think that is precisely what I was talking about before. You aren't punished by having resources go to waste. Instead you are rewarded by gaining more out of these if you do focus management on them and know what you are doing.
So I ask you what is wrong with this:
In Civ3 you don't have to micromanage anything at all if you don't feel like it. The computer will manage your cities for you, you can move whole stacks and attack en masse, workers can be automated. So you can 0% manage or you can 100% manage. Civ4 has a few more buttons that do a few more things, but it's not some transcendence of technology, it's because the 3rd iteration was 4 years older.
CIv 3 tried to do this but failed is why it doesn't happen. Governors have been in Civ since 1. It's how the AI handles its cities. SO better self managing cities mean smarter AI. Workers in 4 are still having their problems but again if the computer can do this RIGHT, why not? Why MUST you do it yourself? DO you get up and manually change your TV channel every time you want to change it because using a remote means your stupid? I doubt it. This is a game. Why not make the computer handle the tedius stuff if it is going to do what you would do anyways. Although, I still wouldn't recommend automating your workers on four and neither would any other player of 4 that plays above noble. Most noble players will attest to that too. 0% manage means you are running a stagnant empire. 100% manage means you are playing at full capacity and taking every oppurtunity you see. If you are GOOD enough you can ensure your victory earlier. This is the same in 3. IN 3 you CAN 0% manage your empire. ANyone here wanna say that you should? As such no one in the Civ 4 forums will say that you should there either.
personally i feel like ive grown sharper analysis and tac-wise playing cIV. a feeling i never really had with civ iii even if i played the game for years. but that's just me.
