Not a Beginner, bored with the game...
- Thread starter Pratputajao
- Start date
Wodan
Deity
THARN said:
I've actually felt loyalty from, get this, Isabella. We stayed thick all game, key was probably we were same religion. Plus, there were several aggressive AIs who kept attacking us.
Wodan
im one of our blessed noobs who just came in civ4, i love the game but still can admit to the flaws that some of the vets point out,
the A.I.s loyalty is an issue i hate, also the epic game isnt epic its drawn out which annoys me, as far as game slowing down. i could go into a tech related issue with your comps but im sure you know that.
i think the biggest thing with this game and reason i bought it was its built for multi player, i love my single player games, but if you can find a friend to play with you, and add some A.I. the game can be a blast, teaming with them to get fast tech or even just a ffa is amazing, maybe im just using this person as a smart A.I. who remembers descisions or keeps peace, and does real tech trades, but still i think if your bored, find a civ buddy in your skill and just play it that way.
civ 4 was developed from ground up for multi, try it out, when civ 1 and 2 came out we had horrible internet if anything, we were dependent on A.I. its 05 now, almost everyone has broadband connections, play online.
(i know post may seem like its posted by an ****** i need sleep but i really feel my online arguement has a valid point behind it.
the A.I.s loyalty is an issue i hate, also the epic game isnt epic its drawn out which annoys me, as far as game slowing down. i could go into a tech related issue with your comps but im sure you know that.
i think the biggest thing with this game and reason i bought it was its built for multi player, i love my single player games, but if you can find a friend to play with you, and add some A.I. the game can be a blast, teaming with them to get fast tech or even just a ffa is amazing, maybe im just using this person as a smart A.I. who remembers descisions or keeps peace, and does real tech trades, but still i think if your bored, find a civ buddy in your skill and just play it that way.
civ 4 was developed from ground up for multi, try it out, when civ 1 and 2 came out we had horrible internet if anything, we were dependent on A.I. its 05 now, almost everyone has broadband connections, play online.
(i know post may seem like its posted by an ****** i need sleep but i really feel my online arguement has a valid point behind it.
Pertaining to the posts that said they sit down with the intention of playing Civ4, and end up coming here instead:
I found I could relate to this very well. It seems that I always have intentions of playing Civ4, but I end up here instead for a bit. I know for a fact I'm not a great Civ4 player, I haven't figured out how to use all the game mechanics to my advantage, but I can keep up pretty well on Noble, with a chance of winning maybe slightly bigger than a chance of losing. However, I seem to have no desire to learn the game inside-and-out like I did the other ones(not claiming I did, but I had the "desire" to, and tried, and learned as much as possible in the time I played them). I don't want to build a massive empire and wage an epic world war - the words "massive" and "empire" go hand-in-hand in my mind with "slowdown" and "maintenance" now in Civ4 and I lose interest. Slowdown being the game actually slowing down and becoming near-impossible to play, and maintenance being city maintenance, making the effort to get money, keep up in techs, and steadily build an army (that you can afford) is a huge annoyance more than anything. The game seems much more focused towards only having a few cities, which, to me, doesn't seem as epic or "empire" like - which is supposed to be the focus of the game, shaping your own empire.
There definitely feels to be something missing here in this game. I definitely don't like the direction they went with graphics, I always thought of Civ players as ones who appreciate the game mechanics more than the eye candy. Civ2's graphcis were great, Civ3's were even better, but now at the point of Civ4 - the graphics have actually become a hindering factor of the game, because now I can't play certain game maps and modes even if I wanted to. Once something such as improving graphics actually starts taking away from the game's enjoyability (and playability) for a (very big) portion of the players, I think it should be stopped, or at least the option to lower the graphics to where the game is actually playable for lower-end computers should be available (turning everything on low will not change the fact that I simply can't play a Terra map in an enjoyable fashion, with what were the 'recommended' specs before the game released, so I don't consider the current option adequate).
The focus on quicker, more convenient games (with multiplayer in mind as well) I think also has its problems. As many have stated before, the game feels like a "hit enter, select tech research, hit enter, select new building, hit enter, hit enter, hit enter" type game now, most of the "selected buildings" being maintainence-reducing, health-improving, wealth-improving, etc - because units get outdated so quickly it seems almost pointless to make them. This almost seems mandatory to keep up in the tech race, you must improve your few cities to no end. Also, almost all of my wars, in every game, happen around the time I get catapults. This means I usually have archers, swordsmen, axemen, catapults, spearmen, and elephants. To me, this is by far the funnest time to wage war. You have the widest variety of units that actually have bonuses against eachother and aren't obsolete, and catapults have just become available (seeing as they're almost necessary to take over cities). After waging a war around this time though, I find it almost necessary afterwards to stop the fighting, and play the "catch-up" game with the rest of the AIs now, as they never seem to want to fight and end up far ahead in technologies.
In my opinion, Civ4 has regressed the Civ series, which I didn't think would happen, because Civ3 seemed to be such a step up. This is just my opinion though.
I found I could relate to this very well. It seems that I always have intentions of playing Civ4, but I end up here instead for a bit. I know for a fact I'm not a great Civ4 player, I haven't figured out how to use all the game mechanics to my advantage, but I can keep up pretty well on Noble, with a chance of winning maybe slightly bigger than a chance of losing. However, I seem to have no desire to learn the game inside-and-out like I did the other ones(not claiming I did, but I had the "desire" to, and tried, and learned as much as possible in the time I played them). I don't want to build a massive empire and wage an epic world war - the words "massive" and "empire" go hand-in-hand in my mind with "slowdown" and "maintenance" now in Civ4 and I lose interest. Slowdown being the game actually slowing down and becoming near-impossible to play, and maintenance being city maintenance, making the effort to get money, keep up in techs, and steadily build an army (that you can afford) is a huge annoyance more than anything. The game seems much more focused towards only having a few cities, which, to me, doesn't seem as epic or "empire" like - which is supposed to be the focus of the game, shaping your own empire.
There definitely feels to be something missing here in this game. I definitely don't like the direction they went with graphics, I always thought of Civ players as ones who appreciate the game mechanics more than the eye candy. Civ2's graphcis were great, Civ3's were even better, but now at the point of Civ4 - the graphics have actually become a hindering factor of the game, because now I can't play certain game maps and modes even if I wanted to. Once something such as improving graphics actually starts taking away from the game's enjoyability (and playability) for a (very big) portion of the players, I think it should be stopped, or at least the option to lower the graphics to where the game is actually playable for lower-end computers should be available (turning everything on low will not change the fact that I simply can't play a Terra map in an enjoyable fashion, with what were the 'recommended' specs before the game released, so I don't consider the current option adequate).
The focus on quicker, more convenient games (with multiplayer in mind as well) I think also has its problems. As many have stated before, the game feels like a "hit enter, select tech research, hit enter, select new building, hit enter, hit enter, hit enter" type game now, most of the "selected buildings" being maintainence-reducing, health-improving, wealth-improving, etc - because units get outdated so quickly it seems almost pointless to make them. This almost seems mandatory to keep up in the tech race, you must improve your few cities to no end. Also, almost all of my wars, in every game, happen around the time I get catapults. This means I usually have archers, swordsmen, axemen, catapults, spearmen, and elephants. To me, this is by far the funnest time to wage war. You have the widest variety of units that actually have bonuses against eachother and aren't obsolete, and catapults have just become available (seeing as they're almost necessary to take over cities). After waging a war around this time though, I find it almost necessary afterwards to stop the fighting, and play the "catch-up" game with the rest of the AIs now, as they never seem to want to fight and end up far ahead in technologies.
In my opinion, Civ4 has regressed the Civ series, which I didn't think would happen, because Civ3 seemed to be such a step up. This is just my opinion though.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
I agree with some of what you say about the "getting bored" fast. Civ4 is much less "random" and "balanced" than the previous versions. But I think that playing epic on different maps is a solution. Normal and fast are just too "fast", you don't have time to use your unit before they got obsolete, and you are always having new buildings to build.
I think mods are the anwer... I realized a few days ago that the reason I played civ2 for so long was that there were hundreds of mods available for it which gave it so much replayability. I stopped playing the regular civ 2 game and focused only on playing mods because each one was basically a game onto itself. Civ4 has obiously more complex coding than civ2 which means we'll have to wait a while for decent mods to come out. However, The flexability of Civ 4 coding means that the mods will be a lot more dynamic and exciting.
EdCase
Defender of the Faithless
ceiph said:
There are many types of game worthwhile playing on line..Civ (imo) has never been and never will be one of them. Designed from the ground up for multiplay in the case of Civ seems to have entailed.
1. Game speeded up
2.Pictograms replacing actual words.
3. A general (I'll call it this because dumbing down sounds offensive) streamlining of gameplay.
4. A tendency to go for "style over substance"
Now yes I know all the above can be modded..and for my game lots of them have already. Ironically this selfsame modding breaks the multiplay mode.
I love the Civ franchise and can see this iteration being played by me for a longtime..just heavily modded and always single player.
Oh and its not my connection thats an issue . I have a 15Mbit connection via cable
Ktulu
Warlord
One of the main problems is that the middle game is far to fast. While the ancient age is probably the most fun, as you explore/expand/war/build, the middle game flies by and you miss out on everything that could be interesting.
The second problem is that the modern age is rather tedious. Conducting a war is ridiculously tedious, constantly moving units up to your front lines and organizing "armies" is quite frankly a pain in the ass.
CIV 4 is still by far the best version of the game, but it's missing something that really changes the way you play the game. All of the fundamentals of the game are essentially the same as they were in Civ 2. Yes there are new aspects like culture and religeon, but at it's core the concept remains the same so you feel like you are playing the same thing over and over.
Personally I think the game needs to add more variety to the tech tree(or even an entirely new tech concept) and also to the types of civs. I'd like to see fictional civs that evolve, empires splitting, more complex diplomacy, and more randomness to how your game can evolve. I find that with each new game I have an unfair advantage over the AI. I know how the other civs will act, I know what type of map I'm on and can plan accordingly, I know what technology comes next etc. I'd like to start a game where I don't know that I should focus on building boats so that I can control the sees which cover most of the world, or that Montezuma will attack me as soon as he can, or that the fictional civ x are financial and militaristic etc.
The second problem is that the modern age is rather tedious. Conducting a war is ridiculously tedious, constantly moving units up to your front lines and organizing "armies" is quite frankly a pain in the ass.
CIV 4 is still by far the best version of the game, but it's missing something that really changes the way you play the game. All of the fundamentals of the game are essentially the same as they were in Civ 2. Yes there are new aspects like culture and religeon, but at it's core the concept remains the same so you feel like you are playing the same thing over and over.
Personally I think the game needs to add more variety to the tech tree(or even an entirely new tech concept) and also to the types of civs. I'd like to see fictional civs that evolve, empires splitting, more complex diplomacy, and more randomness to how your game can evolve. I find that with each new game I have an unfair advantage over the AI. I know how the other civs will act, I know what type of map I'm on and can plan accordingly, I know what technology comes next etc. I'd like to start a game where I don't know that I should focus on building boats so that I can control the sees which cover most of the world, or that Montezuma will attack me as soon as he can, or that the fictional civ x are financial and militaristic etc.
CautiousChaos
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 107
Ktulu said:
That could be a winner. I've seen a mod that attempts to add random events to the game. It's seems like a relatively interesting start, but I haven't tried it yet. Even then, it's only for events and not for altering the fundamental dynamics of a game.
-cc
ajax029
Chieftain
In all the years (Civ1 to Civ3) and thousands and thousands of hours I have spent with this game, I have actually played it only 5 or 6 times. Instead I spent all my energies modding the game. Units, intro movies, dialogue, music, everything was a target and I had a blast. Until now. I may have to get a life now as I just can't get any interest in this improved game. I caught myself back in the Civ3 mod forums marveling at how cool the graphics used to be.
A few things for me (in no particular order):
1) music.... I liked civ III and II music... don't like IV's at all. Just not a fan of classical or tribal music.
2) landmasses - no fun, boring, landmasses. The map generator just makes big blobs. Not many chokepoints, or harbors, or inland lakes.
3) magic - no magic. The landscape is so intriguing, and I love the initial exploration phases, but their are no ruins, no mysterious caves, no caverns. I can't explain it, but the game feels like it would be much better as a fantasy game. Maybe it's the flags all the units carry around.
4) been beat too many times.... I played on monarch about 40 times. After losing the 40th, I just quit.
(the playtester probably assumed in this situation some of us would try an easier level... 
)
5) Something about diplomacy.... like you cannot trade resources for technologies.
6) No tactical battles..... I know it is not classic civ style, but with the new unit system, I would have liked more control over the ways my armies fight.
7) cartoon friends and enemies... the leaderhead art was a downgrade, they are charicatures. If I am playing a game for hours, I am serious. The enemies and friends are too funny... like Alexander always looks drunk.
8) colors... I have to be red Japanese, or mod the game. I really would have liked custom colors. Then I could have had black samauri or green samauri.
9) Icons... the icons in the advisor screens seem smaller than civ III, and less neat, now they just have numbers next to them.... instead of being stacked like in 3.
10) I know alot of this was sacrificed for multiplayer. Civilization would need a radical break in thought if it were to ever be a multiplayer game. That did not happen, and soon civ IV's multiplayer will be a bunch of boring fast 2-player ladder games. Firaxis should have AT LEAST set up an official ladder and website. If they had, they could have control over MP, how it was played, ranked, etc... and give it an "official" feel. This "official" feel is very important to many players. It's why I never played any other historical mods in Civ III or Civ II. If I Was going to play a historical game, I only wanted to play the official one.
That said, I still think Civ IV is great fun, and I am not playing it any more for personal reasons. When the SDK comes out, and if it has a graphics conversion tool, I may be interested again.... for modding, of course.
EDIT: One more thing, ever since I decided that politics are for the birds, my interest in history has seriously waned, so a historical game is really not my cup of tea any more.
1) music.... I liked civ III and II music... don't like IV's at all. Just not a fan of classical or tribal music.
2) landmasses - no fun, boring, landmasses. The map generator just makes big blobs. Not many chokepoints, or harbors, or inland lakes.
3) magic - no magic. The landscape is so intriguing, and I love the initial exploration phases, but their are no ruins, no mysterious caves, no caverns. I can't explain it, but the game feels like it would be much better as a fantasy game. Maybe it's the flags all the units carry around.
4) been beat too many times.... I played on monarch about 40 times. After losing the 40th, I just quit.
(the playtester probably assumed in this situation some of us would try an easier level... )5) Something about diplomacy.... like you cannot trade resources for technologies.
6) No tactical battles..... I know it is not classic civ style, but with the new unit system, I would have liked more control over the ways my armies fight.
7) cartoon friends and enemies... the leaderhead art was a downgrade, they are charicatures. If I am playing a game for hours, I am serious. The enemies and friends are too funny... like Alexander always looks drunk.
8) colors... I have to be red Japanese, or mod the game. I really would have liked custom colors. Then I could have had black samauri or green samauri.
9) Icons... the icons in the advisor screens seem smaller than civ III, and less neat, now they just have numbers next to them.... instead of being stacked like in 3.
10) I know alot of this was sacrificed for multiplayer. Civilization would need a radical break in thought if it were to ever be a multiplayer game. That did not happen, and soon civ IV's multiplayer will be a bunch of boring fast 2-player ladder games. Firaxis should have AT LEAST set up an official ladder and website. If they had, they could have control over MP, how it was played, ranked, etc... and give it an "official" feel. This "official" feel is very important to many players. It's why I never played any other historical mods in Civ III or Civ II. If I Was going to play a historical game, I only wanted to play the official one.
That said, I still think Civ IV is great fun, and I am not playing it any more for personal reasons. When the SDK comes out, and if it has a graphics conversion tool, I may be interested again.... for modding, of course.
EDIT: One more thing, ever since I decided that politics are for the birds, my interest in history has seriously waned, so a historical game is really not my cup of tea any more.
hewhocaves
Chieftain
The funny thing is that for me, pace-wise, this is probably the best Civ since the original. I alwyas felt that in 2 and especially 3 that i was being hurried through the ancient and middle ages to get to the present. Now it's more that I spend an equal amount of time in every age.
(In civ 3 I was so disgruntled I went in and modded it to triple the amount of beakers needed for advancements, double the number of turns and make each population point require two food instead of one. I found that the game played much better and I could enjoy the game at every level, rahter than get that RTS rush anxiety I can't stand.)
I'll probably mod this game in a few months, too. While it plays different, its fairly good in its own right. There are a few things that I think are lacking.
-Expanding the trade options so that you can give/get resources for techs.
-Making the AI a little more forgiving and loyal.
-I would love to see individual treaties against a nation, in addition to generic defensive pacts. And what happened to the embargo?
-Something more specific than "Future Tech". Did Firaxis lose their copy of SMAC and consequently forget what comes after Fusion??
-Canals across plains and grasslands and deserts and tundra
-Being able to terraform tundra and deserts
-Being able to cross mountains. Apparantly my marines and SEALS are total weenies.
-A better manual
-My tech tree in english (the mail must be slow to West Virginia)
On the other hand, there are a few things that I DO like.
-Religion
-Civics
-Barbarian Cities
-Promotion tree
-Great people
-The fact that wonders aren't absolute deal breakers.
-Corruption actually being fixed (maybe a little too well)
So, all in all, it's a mixed bag. now that I've gotten big maps to work (thanks, Harkonnen) i've been able to sit down and really sink my teeth into the game. I don't find myself pining for it when I'm away, but while I'm playing I'm still getting engrossed. The MP for me is a big deal (it's the best and I've been playing MP since CivNet) because I have one or two friends that I play with a lot.
John
(In civ 3 I was so disgruntled I went in and modded it to triple the amount of beakers needed for advancements, double the number of turns and make each population point require two food instead of one. I found that the game played much better and I could enjoy the game at every level, rahter than get that RTS rush anxiety I can't stand.)
I'll probably mod this game in a few months, too. While it plays different, its fairly good in its own right. There are a few things that I think are lacking.
-Expanding the trade options so that you can give/get resources for techs.
-Making the AI a little more forgiving and loyal.
-I would love to see individual treaties against a nation, in addition to generic defensive pacts. And what happened to the embargo?
-Something more specific than "Future Tech". Did Firaxis lose their copy of SMAC and consequently forget what comes after Fusion??
-Canals across plains and grasslands and deserts and tundra
-Being able to terraform tundra and deserts
-Being able to cross mountains. Apparantly my marines and SEALS are total weenies.
-A better manual
-My tech tree in english (the mail must be slow to West Virginia)
On the other hand, there are a few things that I DO like.
-Religion
-Civics
-Barbarian Cities
-Promotion tree
-Great people
-The fact that wonders aren't absolute deal breakers.
-Corruption actually being fixed (maybe a little too well)
So, all in all, it's a mixed bag. now that I've gotten big maps to work (thanks, Harkonnen) i've been able to sit down and really sink my teeth into the game. I don't find myself pining for it when I'm away, but while I'm playing I'm still getting engrossed. The MP for me is a big deal (it's the best and I've been playing MP since CivNet) because I have one or two friends that I play with a lot.
John
Madryoch
Chieftain
thordk said:
It's not just you.
I'm really enjoying Civ4 myself. But if I had to nominate the 2 things I think would move it from being very good to being great, it would be:
1. the "shrunkenness" of the map. Because it's 3D the entire world now looks smaller - you don't get those gigantic empires, that sense of sprawling scope that you did with Civ 3. Add to this the fact that the icons are bigger than they were so you can see the graphics better, it makes the whole world feel smaller. The fact that you can't really play games on Huge maps without getting slowdown makes the world even smaller. To try and replicate that "Huge" feel I've been using the Lakes map on Large size - but then it feels like I'm only playing on a region of a Huge map.
2. The pace of the game. Someone earlier said that Epic, despite being slow and tedious, actually makes the game "feel" more realistic and I reckon he's right. But even on Epic when you're ploughing as much resources as you can to Science to make sure you don't fall behind in the Tech race you end up rushing through later Techs and you don't get a sense of the passing of the years - it's like you're in Ancient, then you're in the Middle Ages, then you're in Renaissance, then you're in Modern so quickly. This is probably part of what makes it feel more arcadey - I don't know how many people played Red Alert 1 and 2, but this feels similar to moving from Red Alert 1 to 2.
Aside from these two things the game is excellent. But you can pretty much finish a game on Large map size with 11 Civs in a couple of days now - I remember the days of spending a week playing a massive Civ3 game - I'd start when I got home from work at 8pm and finish at 3am for a whole week and by the end of the week I still wouldn't be finished. I think you valued victories in the earlier Civs more because they took longer and required more emotional investment from you.
Just my 2c.
My 3 friends and I all got Civ4 the day it came out (pre-ordered). We've all played it to death since, and my friends and I had the same opinion: Something is just not "right" with the game, and we are getting board.
Well, I knew EXACTLY what the problem was, and when I told my friends, they said "Yes! Tha'ts it!"
Civ4 is just like spending untold hours baking, cutting, frosting, and decorating a wedding cake, and finding out the couple is already on their honeymoon. Specifically, the further you go on in the game, the less time you have to enjoy or even use anything you accomplish or build. Near the end of the game, Techs fly by every 2-3 turns (shrug your shoulders), and units you build are obsoulete by the time they are fortified or moved to a useful location. Even if you do decide to take the plundge, and build modern units to use againt other civs, you feel like a total fool for not taking the easier and quicker routes to victory.
In the first 3 civs, you were always wondering throughout the entire end-game "can I stop them from building that spaceship in time"; "will I get nukes before they can send leagions of tanks accross my border"; can I steal enough technology to stop my more advanced neighbor from overrunning me with high tech units". When you did finally research and build those great high tech units, it was SOOOO satisfying crushing that neighbor who had been *****-slapping you the entire game.
In every single Civ4 game we've played, we never get to use musketmen, or planes, or subs, or nukes, or explorers; or rarely even Mech Infintry, there's just NO TIME. Even if you build the units, by the time you get them to your neighbors, they've built half their spaceship and have higher tech units than you do. Using all that high tech army you spent the entire 80% of the game researching to strategically pick your oppoents to pieces is no longer possible.
It's like riding your bike 100 miles to disneyland, and getting there just 30 minutes before it closes; there's just no time to really enjoy all your work and accomplishments. And Epic speed only makes the first 2/3rd of the game an anguishing long mess, while the last 3rd is only somewhat less hecktic.
How many times have you guys built a unit in Civ4, ANY unit, and thought "why bother" or "just wait a couple turns to the next tech/unit is researched" or "The game will be over before I get to use this unit". Lots? THAT'S the problem; There's no time to enjoy the fruits of your labors, and no payoff even if you do. . .
Well, I knew EXACTLY what the problem was, and when I told my friends, they said "Yes! Tha'ts it!"
Civ4 is just like spending untold hours baking, cutting, frosting, and decorating a wedding cake, and finding out the couple is already on their honeymoon. Specifically, the further you go on in the game, the less time you have to enjoy or even use anything you accomplish or build. Near the end of the game, Techs fly by every 2-3 turns (shrug your shoulders), and units you build are obsoulete by the time they are fortified or moved to a useful location. Even if you do decide to take the plundge, and build modern units to use againt other civs, you feel like a total fool for not taking the easier and quicker routes to victory.
In the first 3 civs, you were always wondering throughout the entire end-game "can I stop them from building that spaceship in time"; "will I get nukes before they can send leagions of tanks accross my border"; can I steal enough technology to stop my more advanced neighbor from overrunning me with high tech units". When you did finally research and build those great high tech units, it was SOOOO satisfying crushing that neighbor who had been *****-slapping you the entire game.
In every single Civ4 game we've played, we never get to use musketmen, or planes, or subs, or nukes, or explorers; or rarely even Mech Infintry, there's just NO TIME. Even if you build the units, by the time you get them to your neighbors, they've built half their spaceship and have higher tech units than you do. Using all that high tech army you spent the entire 80% of the game researching to strategically pick your oppoents to pieces is no longer possible.
It's like riding your bike 100 miles to disneyland, and getting there just 30 minutes before it closes; there's just no time to really enjoy all your work and accomplishments. And Epic speed only makes the first 2/3rd of the game an anguishing long mess, while the last 3rd is only somewhat less hecktic.
How many times have you guys built a unit in Civ4, ANY unit, and thought "why bother" or "just wait a couple turns to the next tech/unit is researched" or "The game will be over before I get to use this unit". Lots? THAT'S the problem; There's no time to enjoy the fruits of your labors, and no payoff even if you do. . .
GamesMan said:
ABSOLUTELY! Hit the nail on the head there mate.
This has happened so many times in my experience and it's a combination of factors: railroad isn't unlimited movement any more, the "cheapness" of techs, the ridiculous cost of upgrading units.
I used to love the "kick-on" units in CivIII (principally knights, cav, inf, tanks, modern armour). Each game I played would kick on to another war when I got that tech lead first over the AI and brought my latest top-line unit to open up a can of whupass. It also helped with breaking the game into stages - as you so rightly point out that CIV lacks.
The age of chivalry = knight
The age of gunpowder = musketmen, cavs
The meatgrinder = art + inf
The blitzkrieg = tanks etc.
In CIV, it seems that this effect is drastically reduced, and instead, you have a lot of middling obsolete units still being used in late game because of the ridiculous upgrade costs.
ThERat
Deity
Gamesman, you're the man...I had to nod all the way while reading your post...yes, that's the reason (or part of it)
I also think you contantly feel pressurized by all those city infra buildings..then you think, maybe I need a uni, then you need an observatory, then you need an aquaduct cos you're city is sick, then a hospital etc etc...the list goes on and never do you actually use the fruits of all that labour to mass produce units to go after the AI...
I also think you contantly feel pressurized by all those city infra buildings..then you think, maybe I need a uni, then you need an observatory, then you need an aquaduct cos you're city is sick, then a hospital etc etc...the list goes on and never do you actually use the fruits of all that labour to mass produce units to go after the AI...
Maybe Firaxis felt the pressure from the RTS-community and the MTV-attention-span-generation to make a faster Civ-game? I agree with above posts. Each new technological advance should be a WONDER, a breakthrough, an epic achievement, not "ok, now I have that tech, let´s research next one, that will be ready in 6 turns"
Efexeye
Silly Donkey
Guys, my humble suggestion if you're bored with singleplayer, is to try multiplayer. It is a TOTALLY different game. It can be hard to find people to play an entire game with, but, just like a tabletop game like HeroClix or MageKnight, you can set up a night when you all play, like 1x or 2x a month.
My friends in Michigan and I play quite often, and we have a blast- sometimes we team up against the AI, sometimes we fight each other...it's always more fun to play against other people than against AI's.
My friends in Michigan and I play quite often, and we have a blast- sometimes we team up against the AI, sometimes we fight each other...it's always more fun to play against other people than against AI's.
