Not a Beginner, bored with the game...

[akots]

... There's no time to enjoy the fruits of your labors, and no payoff even if you do. . .

I beg to disagree with this statement. May be this is true for you but imho, this is true only if the player (of course against AI) is doing something very wrong. Indeed, you have to build the modern army rapidly, but so it was in Civ3. Good idea is to set up for the upgrades. Actually, in this case, the higher difficulty levels against AI give some advantages to the human player. AIs have more cash and are more willing to trade often especially buy techs for cash. I've essentially won a game on Immortal level by upgrading a bunch of warriors to grenadiers. AI had riflemen and it was a close fight but grenadiers prevailed. Similar goes for modern warfare although it requires more balanced approach since tanks and airforce has to be built from scratch. So, I ended up attacking only with artillery and infantry/cavalry using machine gunners as a cover. It actually went rather well even though AI had many mechanic infantries. IIRC, it was an emperor level game. Overall, it is not that bad (except slow troop movement due to huge cultural borders) especially on Epic speed.

 

[akots]

Guys, my humble suggestion if you're bored with singleplayer, is to try multiplayer. It is a TOTALLY different game. ...

I bet it is. There are however many bugs and undocumented features for the multiplayer. An easy game with the friends sounds like a right and good thing to do presently. However, serious MP and PBEM games might have to wait before the issues are addressed hopefully in the next patch. Indeed, it is a comletely different game similar to like it was with Civ3.

 

[Efexeye]

I bet it is. There are however many bugs and undocumented features for the multiplayer. An easy game with the friends sounds like a right and good thing to do presently. However, serious MP and PBEM games might have to wait before the issues are addressed hopefully in the next patch. Indeed, it is a comletely different game similar to like it was with Civ3.

What are these bugs and undocumented features? Seriously, I want to know, because I haven't encountered them, and I have played at least as much MP as I have single player.

As an aside, how the hell do you play a PBEM game? Aren't the first 4000 years of the game HORRIBLY boring (they sure are in hotseat!)? And how do you keep the other players from cheating?

 

[monitor173]

EDIT: post erased (after it was truncated during the recent downtime).

 

[screwtype]

I just installed Age of wonder 2: Shadow magic (thanks to a suggestion here) a game very much in the Civ Model and have been playing this every day since I got it while also continuing to play Civ 3. In fact it is part of the reason I haven’t picked CIV back up; even though I know it (AoWSM) is an inferior game. But it has something that CIV seems too lack.

I don't think SM is much "in the Civ model" at all. But I agree it's a lot more fun to play than Civ4. It's more colourful, more intuitive and it has more personality. There are some great monsters in AOW, like the Glutton who swallows enemies whole!

SM also has a separate screen for battle resolution, something Civ still hasn't implemented. I can't *believe* they left this out yet again.

Oh, and SM also belies the arguments of those who say that modern games have to be 3D to sell. The AoW series has done very well, the game looks terrific and it's all in classic 2D. What a pity Civ4 didn't take the same route, the 3D in Civ4 is not merely ugly, but also less functional than the earlier games.

there is something missing; I just don’t know what it is?

I think the problem with Civ4 is that the developers were just too timid. They didn't want to change what they saw as a winning formula. Unfortunately, the Civ paradigm looks very old and dated by now, they really need to bring the concept into the 21st Century, but I can't see them doing it, they are going to milk the loyal fanbase as long as they can.

Maybe it will take another company to move the Civ concept on from here. After all, it's not as though gamers would be badly served by some competition...

 

[ZubieMaster]

This latest incarnation would seem to be a significant attitudinal shift from previous games in the series in its emphasis on strategic quality over quantity. This is evident by its encouragement of building fewer, more specialised, culturally-advanced cities, and the unit advancement tree allowing for elaborate patterns of combat specialisation.

I got bored just reading this. No offense intended -- it is extremely well written -- my point is that perhaps this is the problem, the game is simply based on a boring concept? I mean, if the idea of "winning strategy" is going to turn on "building special cities", it might as well be Sim City.

As to the "elaborate patterns of combat", I haven't seen it. I sounded off on that in the "have they killed the fun for warmongers" thread, so I won't hijack this thread. I'll just sign on to agreeing with the OP.

 

[screwtype]

I have now beat the game at least 10 tens, three or at least on prince. I have yet to build any sort of airplane. I just finished a Prince game. Diplomatic Victory, and the next turn I would have won a space victory. I had no coal, no oil. That means No planes, no tanks, no fun big weapons. The game seems to paced wrong. I used to love modern age fights. Bombing the hell out of people with airplanes, crushing them with tanks and infantry. None of that is needed any more. I can research so much faster than I can the units out that by the time I can engage in a battle. I could have either won the game or someone else would have.

Yeah, I agree, it's like they've dumbed down the game to make it much easier to win, and at the same time they've neglected to get the play balance right.

The result is that it's all a bit of a yawn.

 

[Lucas87]

Multiplayer is fun, but I find its hard to set up. I've played a couple of 4 player multiplayer games and they are quite fun, but very very long. Like at least 10 hours and this is on quick with simultaneous moves. I really wish they had an easy way to just play multiplayer whenever you wanted like a battle.net. This game is balanced for multiplayer but multiplayer is not very convenient right now.

 

[Efexeye]

I really wish they had an easy way to just play multiplayer whenever you wanted like a battle.net.

What, the GameSpy interface doesn't work for you?

 

[Smidlee]

Oh, and SM also belies the arguments of those who say that modern games have to be 3D to sell. The AoW series has done very well, the game looks terrific and it's all in classic 2D. What a pity Civ4 didn't take the same route, the 3D in Civ4 is not merely ugly, but also less functional than the earlier games.

Gee, I believe civ 3 itself was 2d so there no doubt that 2d can sell in the past. Yet if Civ 4 was 2-d there would be people complaining it wasn't 3-d. I remember when Galactic civilizations came out how many people complained about the simple 2-d old-looking graphics. With GC2 stardock is working on improving GC graphics as requested. To be honest I wished AOW:SM did had a little better graphics. Still I doubt AOW:SM sold anywhere close to civ 4 will. I've notice Heroes V (which AOW is more like than Civ) is now becoming 3-D. This is because 3-D sells.

 

[screwtype]

To be honest I wished AOW:SM did had a little better graphics

I don't. I like the graphics as they are, and I don't see that 3D would add anything to the game. In all likelihood, it would only detract from it, as happened with Civ4.

 

[ThERat]

Nobody here I think would mind 3D graphics if they actually add value to the game (e.g immersion, clarity, functionality etc). However, in Civ4 3D is all but eyecandy.
Does it give better immersion? That we can argue...
Does it give better clarity and ease of play? That's a definite no, since I have a much harder time to figure out units, move them around the battlefield.
Has functionality been incorporated? No, it's still a 2D world with 3D looks, there is not a single feature that relies on a 3D world here. Now, if maybe highlands would give bonuses etc etc we might discuss this again, but at the moment, it adds zero in this regard.

What 3D does instead is giving us horrible performance. The game is slow, units move slow, moving the map is slow...Have you tried to open the earth scenario that Firaxis provided. maybe I need the Hal9000 beore I attempt it again.

In conclusion, given the choice of the current Civ4 3D versus Civ3 2D I have to choose the latter.

 

[Green_Power]

In my opinion civ4 does not intend to be a "new" game. It's just Civ. It tries to resolve some well know issues of Civ3 so to keep us folk entertained, and we are. (don't know much about civ2 and civ1 tough, i've played but not as much as Civ3).
You well know that Civ3 had many problems like: lack of pace (our games could last for ages); lack of interest later on the game - i think they still don't have a clue on how to give the game a proper ending chapter - too boring, too obvious, too "let's just big a hundred tanks and conquer this sh*t" - "let's get this over with!!" This is an unacceptable feeling at least in my perspective. That's why so many of us just start fresh games later on when the current game is just dieing slow.

Another problem with most of us guys is, i'm sorry to be so cruel, our AGE. We are becoming old (at least older ). MOO2, Diablo, Civ3 are in our golden 20's past, now it's all down hill.

Monarch is possible to beat maybe 1 in 2 times we play. Emperor is insane. AI bonuses are outrageous, it's just not fun.

My advice to Firaxis folk, as I see they are lacking imagination, is to move on to a Civ title other than just the standard genre. Build another Alpha Centauri game (greeat sh*t). This time it could be a galatic civ like a space empire game like MOO. Maybe even for a more corageus leap to a totally new concept like a Civ with aliens (I have eard other people suggesting alien inclusion somehow). Or maybe a concept like "Mission to Mars Movie", civilization in Mars or Venus (or other galaxy) as predecessor for Earth civ.

These where some toughts from a fan. Great Work firaxis, Sid Mayer you are the man

 

[Smidlee]

I don't. I like the graphics as they are, and I don't see that 3D would add anything to the game. In all likelihood, it would only detract from it, as happened with Civ4.

I saw in the news where people stand in line (waiting for mid-nite) to buy the new X-box 360. why? just because of Graphics. So obviously everyone not like you since graphics does sell. There's not a game that can't be made and played on the PS 2 or X-box yet watch the millions run to the stores to buy these new systems. That's because they look better even though the gameplay is basicly the same.

While their maybe a few who doesn't care about graphics yet it obviously to game and console makers that it matter a lot to the majority and will even pay more money for these graphics. The more people buying the game the more can be put into them to make them better.
To me I think civ4 3-D graphics should have look and run better.

 

[screwtype]

the renaissance age turns into the industrial age in a flash as does the industrial age turn into the modern age in a flash. It seems like you spend so long going through the early ages, aiming for this or that and then boom everything becomes available to you.

Yes, IMO this is the biggest immediate problem with the game that needs fixing. The era balance is totally wrong, you get to about the renaissance age and suddenly you're pulling techs in two or three turns apiece, it's ridiculous.

Totally anticlimactic, and makes you feel as though all the effort that went before just wasn't worth the bother

And for those who say if you don't like it, mod it, sorry, but I don't have time to play around making mods to games anymore, especially in lieue of the extensive time it takes to properly playtest something.

When you pay full price for a game, you expect the devs to have done the play balancing for you, not for you to have to go and redo the whole thing yourself.

 

[screwtype]

Does it give better clarity and ease of play? That's a definite no, since I have a much harder time to figure out units, move them around the battlefield.
Has functionality been incorporated? No, it's still a 2D world with 3D looks, there is not a single feature that relies on a 3D world here. Now, if maybe highlands would give bonuses etc etc we might discuss this again, but at the moment, it adds zero in this regard.

What 3D does instead is giving us horrible performance. The game is slow, units move slow, moving the map is slow...

Yes, I think you've summed up the situation very well therat. The 3D wasn't necessary for a game of this type, it just makes the map look cluttered and things hard to identify, and there's been a huge cost in performance.

 

[screwtype]

I saw in the news where people stand in line (waiting for mid-nite) to buy the new X-box 360. why? just because of Graphics. So obviously everyone not like you since graphics does sell. There's not a game that can't be made and played on the PS 2 or X-box yet watch the millions run to the stores to buy these new systems. That's because they look better even though the gameplay is basicly the same.

Yeah but that's not the issue. Sure, people like better graphics. I LOVE good graphics. I'm just as much a graphics whore as the next guy! Well, almost...

The point is not that better graphics don't sell, obviously they do, the point is that the graphics need to be appropriate to the type of game. 3D adds very little to a strategy game like Civ, in fact in my opinion as I have already stated it detracts from it. For what is essentially a bird's eye view board game, you don't need full 3D, pseudo-3D like in the Panzer General series would have been more than adequate.

 

[Smidlee]

Yeah but that's not the issue. Sure, people like better graphics. I LOVE good graphics. I'm just as much a graphics whore as the next guy! Well, almost...

The point is not that better graphics don't sell, obviously they do, the point is that the graphics need to be appropriate to the type of game. 3D adds very little to a strategy game like Civ, in fact in my opinion as I have already stated it detracts from it. For what is essentially a bird's eye view board game, you don't need full 3D, pseudo-3D like in the Panzer General series would have been more than adequate.

Well, I do have a PC that run Civ4 well so the graphics are a plus. I don't believe it's the 3-D graphics itself that's the problem as much as it's the cities graphics that's slowing down the game. I get great framerate on globel view even on superhuge map fully revealed until I add in a lot of big cities on the map. It's then my framerate will drop to sorry 3 fps. Even when zoomed in I've notice the more big develop cities on the screen the lower my framerate drops (varies 75 fps down to 20 fps ) Hopefully a future patch will solve these slow downs.

 

[Sorceresss]

When you pay full price for a game, you expect the devs to have done the play balancing for you, not for you to have to go and redo the whole thing yourself.

What a mentality : "I pay, so I'm owed everything."

The era of the Consumer King : spending dollars gives him right & might.

It is so easy to edit those XML text-files to suit your needs : so easy.

 

[Smidlee]

By the way, here is a handy tool where you can change the cost of tech in each age which in turn slow down the game where you want. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140264