Maybe the problem isn't Civ4 it's Civ in general.

[TLHeart]

I have to agree with some of you here, CIV just does not have the epic feel of building an empire, that is working well, and growing. NO you have to decide right from the start how you want to win the game, and stick to that method. Ever try and start the game, and decide what victory condition you will go for around the middle ages? Just about impossible to achive, unless it is the ho hum space race. The space race has no fun to it. Might as well just let the clock run out at 2050.

The tech pacing does not match the playability of the game, needs to be rebalanced. I have moved up the difficulty ladder, same problems, I just start out farther behind the AI at the beginning. I still catch up.

War is harder, which for me is good. I enjoy the promotions, and the combined arms, but there are some units missing, too close together...(catapult,cannon,artillary).

I am a builder, not a war monger. I want to build a civilization to stand the test of time, and at times that includes war. CIV does not reward a person that builds a productive, civilization that stands the test of time. The 3 cities with legendary culture, is okay, but the entire civilization culture should be considered in a culture win, not just 3 cities.

I still believe that Take2 wanted to try and draw in the RTS crowd into a turned based game to generate more sales. This is why those of us who have played civ from the beginning, are disapointed in CIV. The fun of building a civilization, and just 4 more turns, and I can start my next goal, is not there for me. It becomes, space space,enter.

Diplomacy needs to be fixed. Only allowing trading of like items is Bogus Bull. If I have extra wheat, and I want to trade it for a Tech, I should be allowed to do this. Or at least add in a resource along with another tech, to balance the trade.

CIV is missing that element that makes me want to continue to the end of the game...the industrial age flys by, and the spy unit is so weak, as to be almost useless. And having to build a national wonder, Scotland Yard, to have spies ?????? Spies have exisisted since man started settling down.

SMAC had some great ideas, and I hoped that some of them would be incorporated into CIV. I am dissapointed.

Bring on the mods!!!

 

[Sorceresss]

I have to agree with some of you here, CIV just does not have the epic feel of building an empire [...] The tech pacing does not match the playability of the game, needs to be rebalanced.

1) Well, then : edit the XML text-files. It is very easy to do & test. I know nothing about computer programming and I have found it very easy to edit the XML files using WordPad.

2) I'm like you : a Civilization builder...not at all a warmonger.

I use, without shame, the World Builder to keep a lid on stupid wars (even though I play with A.I. aggresiveness ON). The ethical trick with the WB is to learn how to be fair towards all players when you do in-game modifications. If I give myself an advantage to accelerate my civ-building, I will go around and grant gifts to the A.I. civs.

 

[xGBox]

I'm not sure about unbalancement, but everything can be changed with the XML files. If you don't think it's balanced, change it so it is.

But I play the game Firaxis made it. Civilization IV is not a game with regards to absolute historical accuracy, it's a game based on history based on Sid Meier. With that said, if everybody plays the same game, everybody follows the same rules and make strategies that work best for them. Everything else is boggled down into choices and how well they are with micromanagement. It's not the game that's inaccurate and unbalanced, it's really just how well people play the game against others.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

1) Well, then : edit the XML text-files. It is very easy to do & test. I know nothing about computer programming and I have found it very easy to edit the XML files using WordPad.

Now then, Sorceress, let me tell you: I am, in fact, a programmer. While I haven't, until now, done anything with Python and rarely ever touched XML, I have no doubts that I could handle these like a couple of other languages I had to learn in the past. So, I COULD edit those files. Sure. But what would be the result? Some generic "civ-like" game with a bit of tinkering - and let's be honest: Balance rellay is an issue NOT covered by the change of 3 lines of XML. Ask Firaxis, they will second that.

What's more, you end up having an "incomparable game". No standard values, no orientation. Change a few values and 50% of strategy discussions here get useless because the posts apply to the standard settings and might have very different results in your "civ-like" game. That's why I've always been interested in "major mods" which have a stable player base, a kind of a sub-community. Throw together half a dozen different small mods and we all are playing essentially different games.

And, finally: I play a game to relax from coding. I do NOT wish to tinker around with more code in order to MAKE it enjoyable in the first place.

As for the world builder: Been there, done that. But the sense of achievement, lessened in CIV4 anyway, is even smaller when doing this. So you did NOT rise up to the challenge but instead bent the rules to your liking (even if it was "fair bending").

I mean, come on, this is no religious war, it's just about a game (even if has been "the" game for me for many years now). The simple question is: "Is this game good (as in: "Do *I* like it?) out of the box or is it 'bananaware' which is to ripen at the customer's?". Seeing that meanwhile I really enjoy playing SMAC and CIV3 more than playing the brand new CIV4, for me the question is answered.

 

[keso]

I have to agree with Varelse and those other posters not satisfied with Civ IV.
The gameplay mechanics are the best and the most balanced to date. I like culture and religion concepts and I like how they are implemented in game but still there is something missing.
I find myself trying different strats and giving up the game when it's clear that I have won or lost. The "flavor" and wonder of Civ is gone. My mindset playing this game has been more of an RTS-game mindset than Civ.

Sure I'm partly to blame for not having "immersed" myself enough in the game and for focusing to much on the strat-side of things but the elements, like good wonder movies with a short history lesson and annoying but flavor-adding advisors, that made this game "immersive" are not there anymore. Sid Meiers games have always had that "immersive" trait starting with Pirates but that trait is sorely lacking in Civ IV.

Maybe I'm supposed to play human players to really appreciate this game but if that is the case than I prefer a good RTS-game like Age of Mytology ( haven't tried AoE III yet).
Ahh..well, maybe the community here can come up with something that will make this game interesting for me again. I haven't bested the hordes in TW:Barbarian Invasion yet so I have other options to waste my time on.

The best games so far with Sid Meiers name on it has i.m.o. been Alpha Centauri and Civ II followed by Pirates. Alpha Centauri had the right ingredients with cool tech, a sense of wonder and a very satisfying ending.
Maybe a mod with Civ IV game-play mechanics and Alpha Centauri content would make single-player more fun.
If anyone with more experience would like to start such a mod I would be happy to help.

 

[Sorceresss]

Now then, Sorceress, let me tell you: I am, in fact, a programmer. [...] So, I COULD edit those files. Sure. But what would be the result?

My point was very simply & very modestly this :

If the poster does not find the pace "epic" enough, he can very easily edit the XML text-files to make it "epic" (according to his taste).

For example. I easily edited one file to make that each epic-type, pre-medieval turn corresponds to 12 years. I enjoy pre-medieval strategy.

It's just a matter of taste. I don't feel that I have to conform to the preferences of the Firaxis designers (even if they are "superior" to mine).

I never play on-line MP, so I don't need to conform to a standard Firaxian format to measure myself against the other human Civ players. Those gamers who specialize in SP should not feel limited by the rigorous standards of the MP experts.

To each is own.

But THXxx for taking the time & care to answer me. Your post is very valid.

 

[jupiterkris]

Too graphically intense
Overly dependant on insight, tactics and strategy
Little or no room for exploitative comebacks and victories

Immersive for the novices
Challenging for the experts

Leaves the acolyte out in the cold
Overly familiar with gameplay
Familiarity no longer a guarantee of victory

Aaaah ... A CIV expert has been born in a distant land ... it's just not me

-- from a journal of a CIV acolyte

 

[TheJediMaster]

You have to be able to win to enjoy the game. Right now that doesn't happen.

Either you set the AI so low that you can beat them with your eyes closed and the game is just "produce another calvery." This isn't winning cause it was too easy. OR the AI cheats and can beat you getting tech, armys, land and you have to fight so hard for long periods that you just give up because of the WWI stalemate you get at each city.

I've started countless games and have yet to finish one. Both multiplayer and singleplayer. They just get to boring, too tedious, and definately not fun.

 

[Kolyana]

Dictating what win I'm going for from turn #1 *is* the most off putting feature, I will admit.

 

[Sorceresss]

Dictating what win I'm going for from turn #1 *is* the most off putting feature, I will admit.

I don't have that problem : I never play to win.

I treat CIV IV as a macro-RPG.

 

[oldtimer]

Fireaxis asked for suggestions concerning civilization V or an expansion pact. I would like to suggest a new civilization series set before the current 4000bc start time.

I would like to see a game set in pre-historic times where the "civilizations are the various humanoid strains that competed to become what we now call human. There would be competition to see which group was able to survive and prosper in their particular climate/terrian and spread their species. The research tree would be somewhat simplified but more basic - fire/group hunting/stone weapons/weaving/spirituality/clans/etc

The endgame or victory could revolve around a scoring system that considered research/territority/domination/??

I am not talking about a fanasty creature/monster game but a serious game that revolves around the evolution of mankind.

Just an idea!

 

[TLHeart]

Yes I could go in and modify the XML files, to help with the epic feel of the game, but so far even the mods out there have not quite got it right.

That is and was not my point. Take2, in trying to broaden the market base for the game, have lessened the immersion of the game towards the multiplayer market, where a game begins, and ends in a few hours, instead of days or weeks.

This is my biggest complaint about the game. The attempt to make a game that will entice two totally different styles of play, fast, quick, against humans, finish a game in about 2 to 3 hours, or a slower, more thought provoking, just one more turn to complete, civilization building against a program that we all know has an advantage. I honestly say that Take2 failed on both accounts, and we the consumer are the biggest loosers.

 

[Kaleb]

3) For some reason Civ 4 does not pull me in like the other Civs. I know many of you think parts of the game such as building your Palace, Wonder movies, AI images changing with time and advisor animations are just fluff, but for me it is those fine details that were left out of Civ 4 that makes the game lacking, it just does not feel like a personal experience any more.

I suppose that sums up pretty well why I am having a lot of trouble epathising with some of the complaints in this thread - one of the first things I did with all versions of civ since the first one is to turn wonder movies, advisors, palace etc OFF, so I only noticed they were gone when I came onto these forums.

This must be why for me this is the best game in the series. I love strategy, and couldn't care less for sims or RPGs. A good game is a game that forces me to think, period.

preach it brother!

especially as there is such a dirth of really GOOD strategy games around at the moment. and if you want to complain about bad AI - the AI in Rome Total War campaign level was appalling. As much as I love the Total War series I found playing on the hardest level as the smallest nations far too easy. Hearts of Iron and similar games were also too easy - Civ is the only game I can find that really gives me a good strategic challenge.

 

[Banira]

I liked the original wonder movies and detailed civpedia entries. anyway...

If there is a problem with Civ IV it has to be the AI foremost. And second-most the interface elements that block the flow of the game (you probably all can name a few). The lack of polish and detail in specific areas, like the amount of civs and leader choices that could have fattened it up a fair amount.

The AI...every civ has the same way of doing things. What they should have done is create several AIs that somehow mix it up and do things like combat and military differently, that don't always build in the 'sweet spot', but build at an interesting strategic situation. Their map generator is a bit flat in that respect as well. The terrain is treated wrong. The terrain should be an actor in and of itself, shaping interesting and challenging situations for the player.

And sure, that is a challenging task for the programmers who make the AI, but an interesting and 'multi-headed' AI would be a great boon to any strategy game. Easier said than done of course..

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

This is my biggest complaint about the game. The attempt to make a game that will entice two totally different styles of play, fast, quick, against humans, finish a game in about 2 to 3 hours, or a slower, more thought provoking, just one more turn to complete, civilization building against a program that we all know has an advantage. I honestly say that Take2 failed on both accounts, and we the consumer are the biggest loosers.

I guess you really hit the core of the problem here. I had that vague feeling since when I saw the first screenshotsfrom those 3D graphics. Sure, one could build a strategy game that actually makes USE of true 3D, but somehow I had the feeling this was simply a sign that the developers desperately try to appeal to a market share that hadn't been into the CIV series before. Sadly, my fears proved to be right on spot - we ended up not only with a fully redundant 3D engine (what an irony - a 3D engine to display a 2D map...!), but with a monstrous resource hog which clutters a gameplay otherwise so streamlined it actually feels like work when playing it.

At first, I appreciated the re-inclusion of wonder movies and the nice re-birth of that intro slideshow (making me feel quite sentimental). However, after only a couple of games, I felt that those, especially the extremely generic and un-imaginative wonder movies, are nothing more than an attempt to camouflage the fact that CIV4 is just not what many old CIV veterans wanted and hoped for.

"When you hunt TWO rabbits, you'll surely lose them BOTH".

Someone has to tell Firaxis, I guess.

 

[Sorceresss]

I would like to suggest a new civilization series set before the current 4000bc start time.

I would like to see a game set in pre-historic times where the "civilizations are the various humanoid strains that competed to become what we now call human. There would be competition to see which group was able to survive and prosper in their particular climate/terrian and spread their species. The research tree would be somewhat simplified but more basic - fire/group hunting/stone weapons/weaving/spirituality/clans/etc [...] I am not talking about a fanasty creature/monster game but a serious game that revolves around the evolution of mankind.

I second that idea.

As it is now, I specialize in the -4000 to +1000 era. I never play beyond 1000. I have edited the XML file to slow the historical pace (now 12 years per turn on Epic) and the research pace (of course).

If I really want to go beyond 1000 AD, I will switch to AoE II & III, Empire Earth I & II. That's what I will be doing starting Dec. 23 : a lot of AoE III.

Consequently, I would really like if the Civ series explored the prehistorical periods before 4000 BC, as brilliantly presented by the poster.

Maybe not a separate game : more in the form of one of the expansions to CIV IV. It would cost Firaxis, but I would pay full price for such an expansion.

Philos Labs, in Eastern Europe, a few years ago, was seriously developing a RTS occuring in the prehistoric times ("Dawn of War", if I recall correctly). I think it was never finished : don't know why. Oh well : one could always play "Populous III : The Beginning". But I think the poster has something much more serious in mind.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Fireaxis asked for suggestions concerning civilization V or an expansion pact. I would like to suggest a new civilization series set before the current 4000bc start time.

I would like to see a game set in pre-historic times where the "civilizations are the various humanoid strains that competed to become what we now call human. There would be competition to see which group was able to survive and prosper in their particular climate/terrian and spread their species. The research tree would be somewhat simplified but more basic - fire/group hunting/stone weapons/weaving/spirituality/clans/etc

The endgame or victory could revolve around a scoring system that considered research/territority/domination/??

I am not talking about a fanasty creature/monster game but a serious game that revolves around the evolution of mankind.

Just an idea!

sounds kind of like Spore.

edit: oops, not really.

 

[Jack Naples]

"When you hunt TWO rabbits, you'll surely lose them BOTH".
Someone has to tell Firaxis, I guess.

I don't follow you. Tell Firaxis what? Their version of the proverb is:

"If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both".

Are you saying there's something wrong with that?

 

[Salarakas]

Good post DemonDeLuxe.

I must say I was very dubious when I heard they were going to use 3d and the first official screenshots looked pretty awful. Sort of like the new Pirates version but with Civ units. Luckily they managed to improve it a fair bit and the end result is not all that bad.

However, I can honestly say that I like the graphics of Civ3 much more. The only really useful thing about this engine is the zooming feature. Other than that, it's much messier (is that a word?) than in the previous games and it's sometimes very hard to spot enemy units unless you zoom in very close. It doesn't really add anything important to the game in my opinion, only makes it run poorly for most(?) players.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

I don't follow you. Tell Firaxis what? Their version of the proverb is:

"If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both".

Are you saying there's something wrong with that?

Just the opposite. If you try to appeal to RTS fans, people who like fast-paced multiplayer games AND people who love epic builder games, you will end up satisfying none of them, because for every branch, there are specialised games better covering the market share.

For long times, CIV was "the" TBS game out there. TBS (and TBS at epic length) was the foundation, was the core. The loudest complaints you hear (aside from compatibility issues) deal with the loss of the "epic" feeling and immersion, the single most often heard oine being that time flies past too quickly in the latter eras. On the other hand, CIV4 is more accessible to, say, AoE fans. Then again, the latter will probably stick to AoE or something alike that does not try to adopt a certain approach, but represents it fully.

The morale: Better do ONE thing and do it RIGHT than try a bunch of things, all of them lacking somehow.