Not a Beginner, bored with the game...

[ButSam]

Sounds like you might enjoy Epic or Marathon mode, modded where units are not as expensive as techs. This is well-documented to mod, and I think there are already good mods out there for this sort of thing! That lets you do more unit movements before research outdates your units.

 

[JerichoMyst]

too much to read...
well first of all turned off all help hints, still got bored too fast, stopped using automation (still boring)...
found one way to play (a bit boring too, but still):
1. no peace from very begining (well almost);
2. small maps (cause size of map just "scales" the game, but doesn't influence gameplay);
3. turn of space victory, time victory (sometimes and diplomatic one);

now I enjoy those short Civ4 matches

 

[Smidlee]

That is indeed true, but i think they have overdone it. Surely there where better ways to appeal to new players don't you think?
I mean what kind of new players do they want to attract? Little kids? When i play the game i can't help it but feel i'm playing a game designed for infants. Don't get me wrong, i know it's not, but that's the feeling i get from the graphics and the sounds of the game.

It's just...weird to say the least.

I like the graphics myself but at least Firaxis is design civ4 for everything could be mod for hardcore gamers. To me civ4 seems heavy geared toward multiplayer maybe a little too much. Future Mods (maybe expansions) will hopefully gear the game more to the hardcore civfans. I still enjoy civ4 both single and multiplayer and like it more than civ3 vanilla.

 

[Sirian]

I think the main problem that I find with the gameplay, has to do with the fact that there are many different ways to advance your civ in the game, but none of them are very clearly defined or seperate from the other ways to advance your civ.

That's an interesting concept. I'm curious about it.

For me, Civ4 is the opposite. There are several clearly defined ways to proceed, which each differ greatly.

1. Guns or Butter. You can focus on improving your cities with buildings and wonders, or on training units and attack other civs. Builders need enough units to defend vs aggressors, while aggressors need enough buildings to fund research and pay unit costs, but

2. Expand upward or expand outward. The more you expand outward, the more slowly you expand upward. Your tech slows as you pay those "up front investment costs" on new cities. Expanding outward can pay off big later, at the cost of moving slowly earlier. Expanding upward can net you wonders, better tech trades, freebies on the tech tree, etc.

3. Use religion for economic advancement, or use it for diplomatic advancement. You can found your own religion(s) and lean on religious civics, or you can line up your religion with specific neighbors to avoid making the wrong enemies or enable you to make the right friends.

4. Religion/Economy/War/Scouting -- four different ways to lean your opening in the BC era, all very different. Scouting can get your more huts, get a drop on expansion plans. Early war can snuff out or hamstring a rival while he's still in the cradle. Early religion can deny religious income and influence to neighbors by gathering holy cities in your own empire, or it can at least ensure that you'll have access to religious civics all game long.

5. Choice of wonders: different beelines can get you a specific wonder. Which ones would help you the most, is the question. (Which ones can you build faster thanks to having the associated resource, also matters.)

6. Great People. Chasing them early means slower growth. Should you plant them in your cities? Build their special buildings? Use them to get a jump on certain techs (and wonders, religions, freebies, etc). Or combine them for golden ages? The different choices all have something going for them, but depending on your situation and what else you are trying to do, sometimes one set of options is better than another. ... You can also choose NOT to chase them early, knowing that some will begin to pop on their own later on. You can do other things early, such as lots of Slavery-whippings to build things faster, or running more cottages and maturing them sooner. The Great People do start to get pretty involved, but clarity here comes from the other major strategic choices you are making.


I'm a bit baffled as to how having meaningful choices is boring to some.

In Civ1 and Civ2, there really isn't much choice. Bigger is always better. You get to corruption-free governments and just keep growing. The AIs were totally pathetic at the economic/expansion side of the game, so I think people have a rosy memory of what it was like to play those games.

Civ3 has a cap on how much you can grow, then corruption ruins the rest, so that's just as bad. What fun is it in Civ3 to settle a new city in 1600AD? That will be a useless piece of crap, so nobody bothers. They spam settlers galore in the early game, to a limit of what corruption allows to be useful, and then every game plays out just about the same way.

In Civ4, cities settled later in to the game are worth bothering with. The expansion phase lasts a lot longer, and there is always the question of when to push upward vs outward. Each has pros and cons. Cities are harder to capture, but captured cities are actually worth having, adding something besides a hopeless corrupt outpost to your empire.


Civ has always been about simple things: Cities and Units, Food/Production/Commerce, Economic victory (spaceship) or Military victory (conquest). That's Civ in a nutshell. Civ4 is more of the same.


Civ4's core dilemma is the conflict between military and economy. The military side has to pace itself in ways it never did before. Too much expansion, too many cities (settled or conquered) and you can drown under your own weight. You have to build a foundation to support more expansion.

This process is well balanced for standard maps. Smaller maps, the military side has less to do while the economic side (space) is unchanged, so military is EASIER on small maps. Larger maps, the military side is HARDER, because there is more to do, but again, Space is the same.

I think one problem players are running in to is that a number of you guys want to play only the largest, biggest, slowest everything. So there are Epic or Marathon games on Huge Continents or Huge Terra with 18 civs. I'm sorry to say that the military game is not really viable under those conditions TO THE SAME EXTENT that it is viable for standard conditions. This leads to a clash. You either play at a difficulty level where space race is a challenge, but you have no hope of military victory, or you play at a level where military victory is possible but the space race is boring.

At the moment, I don't have an answer for these people. The game allows these settings, but I don't think there's any doubt that it performs more strongly under conditions closer to the defaults.


- Sirian

 

[BlizzardGR]

Future Mods (maybe expansions) will hopefully gear the game more to the hardcore civfans.

I really hope so.

PTW wasn't much of an addition to civ3 but conquests was a real improvement. At least to me it was. I prefer civ4 over civ3 vanilla too, but i'm not sure i prefer it over conquests. I guess i don't.

 

[_Os_]

Thank you for the reply Sirian.. I'm not exactly sure what it is about the multitude of available options in gameplay, which makes it so that it doesn't feel like it's worth continuing a game.

I agree that having interesting choices to make in the game, keeps it compelling and enjoyable to play. But I suppose that maybe the problem is that, because there are so many factors involved in how you can increase the power of your empire, you can't be sure of exactly what choices you are actually making.

There's something about the way that the choices are presented, or not presented in a clear, differentiating enough way, that makes it so that you spend a large amount of your time just trying to fiigure out, first, what exactly the choices are, then second, what the result of these choices would be, then, after figuring this out for the variety of choices, making a decision. But the complexity of the game makes it so that you can't be sure exactly what it is that you're deciding.

Will the choices that you make increase your economy? If so, how? How would taking this tech direction ultimately effect your empire? To find out, you have to sit there for 15 minutes and work it all out, and even then, you can't be totally sure that it's the best route to take, because there's just too many routes to take.

Being someone who only has so much time every day, and being someone who wants to sit down to a game, with a clearly defined world in which I understand exactly what the choices that I make will do for me in the game, it is disheartening to reach the point in the game where it's not clear exactly what the choices that I make will do for me. I save at the end of the session, and either don't feel like loading that game up again, or I load it up, try to untangle the knot of how I should proceed, and after 2 or 3 turns don't feel like continuing.

In the early game, the gameplay, and the ultimate results of your choices, are clear to you.

If you build a city there, you'll get copper, and it's also got some good tiles for trade. Also, it's on a hill at this location, so it will be easier to keep ahold of.

Or, if you scout out these tiles to the NW of your main city, you'll get an idea of if there's a good spot to plop down a city there. Things like this.

But there's a point in the game which you reach, where it's not clear anymore which choices you want to make, because all of the paths in the game intertwine so much, and each one has multiple benefits.. There's just too many factors involved, and they aren't differentiated from one another clearly enough, for me to say "If I do this, this will happen."

It feels like every 3-5 turns, I have to sit there for 10-15 minutes, analyze every angle, and then decide what to do, in terms of tech, or building wonders, etc. But I know that I'll just have to do the same thing in the next 3-5 turns, and I feel like I'm driving a car, but the windshield's frosted over and it's foggy out, and I can only see the 15 feet in front of me that are clear. Am I going in the right direction? Who can say.

If I win, it won't feel like I've conquered the game. It'll just feel like I've made the right semi-educated guesses, and blundered my way to a victory.

Edit: Ultimately, I think part of it is that it's an issue of not being able to see the overall big picture.. you feel like you're too deep in the "forest" of options available to you, and you can't get up on the mountaintop to see the whole forest. The reason for being unable to see the big picture, I think, is that, from start to finish, the variety of pathways to take, are too complex, aren't clearly defined, and aren't differentiated enough.

I feel like there needs to be a very, very deep tutorial, to explain topics, such as building your empire up, or out, and many other tactical elements of the gameplay. Even then, it feels mentally unwieldly, trying to mentally muscle your way through the web of options which are available. It feels like you have to mentally fight and figure your way through the game, as opposed to just making interesting decisions along the way.

 

[BlizzardGR]

All things considered i might put civ4 aside for a while. It's a great game and all but i'm quite bored with it. Maybe play total war or something until an expansion.
Maybe i should also mention that Galactic Civilizations 2 will be released next month, for anyone who is interested.
It has similar structure to civilization and is worth checking out, don't you think?

Of course civ will always be the king, no doubt!

 

[neriana]

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

Every single game I've played, Gandhi's been my bestest buddy. He's always there. We always love each other. I think one of these days Elizabeth is going to have his children.

Tokugawa, otoh, always hates my guts, and the feeling has become mutual .

I also feel like the game is more focused. I guess in the previous games, there weren't as many choices; you just built everything everywhere in Civ 2, and either built everything in a city in Civ 3 or nothing. What's great in Civ 4 is that cities really can specialize.

I'm also thrilled to be rid of 60+ cities. "Athens 2", argh. I couldn't keep track of them all, and by that time, I certainly didn't have to, they were just annoying pop-up generators. In Civ 4, I know what each of my cities is, I know what it produces, and I have a much better connection to my empire that way.

"But there's a point in the game which you reach, where it's not clear anymore which choices you want to make, because all of the paths in the game intertwine so much, and each one has multiple benefits.. There's just too many factors involved, and they aren't differentiated from one another clearly enough, for me to say "If I do this, this will happen."" -- Os

I love this. I adore this. I don't want to play a game with obvious mathematical choices, where there is only one "right" way to do things. I could sit at my computer and calculate prime numbers all day, but I'd rather have fun. I've never met an experience in which I did not want more choices, and I love thinking laterally. As soon as I read a strategy guide that tells me there is only one "right" way to do something, I'll immediately cross that way off the list if I can, whether from sheer perversity or something else.

No more settler spam in this game thrills me. And... it also makes me try to win by constantly expanding, because I've been told not to .

Edit: I'm also interested in Galactic Civilizations 2. It looks like a seriously updated Master of Orion 2; hopefully it'll live up to that.

 

[_Os_]

I love this. I adore this. I don't want to play a game with obvious mathematical choices, where there is only one "right" way to do things. I could sit at my computer and calculate prime numbers all day, but I'd rather have fun. I've never met an experience in which I did not want more choices, and I love thinking laterally. As soon as I read a strategy guide that tells me there is only one "right" way to do something, I'll immediately cross that way off the list if I can, whether from sheer perversity or something else.

I agree with this viewpoint.. if the method of success in a game feels like a gimmick (sp?) to me, I am immediately taken out of the experience.. it must feel like a realistic method of success, and not like it's just an unchanging process to go through to win. I played Civ3 a few times through, and after that I'd learned the way to win, so it didn't seem necessary to play it anymore.

But I don't know, I feel like in Civ4, I don't understand every aspect of what's going on with my empire.. to use a strange way of saying it, the game doesn't "speak" the dynamics of the various ways to proceed to me in a clear way. I feel like I have to interpret everything as I'm going every game, starting around the midgame. Before that, everything is presented to me in a clear-cut ("clearly spoken") way. But around the mid-game, the gameplay begins to feel muddled. I get bogged down in the details and have to work to stay on top of things, and ultimately feel like it's not worth the effort.

I think part of what makes it feel like it's not worth the effort is what GenericKen said earlier about the victory conditions being too similar, and other dynamics that he brought up about the victory conditions.

Let me add too, that my first play-through of the game, I had a very enjoyable experience.. a whole new way of designing Civ, and one that was very interesting to play. But now that I'm playing to win rather than to experience the game, I feel like it's not a challenge worth taking on. The experience the 1st time through was great, though.

 

[neriana]

But I don't know, I feel like in Civ4, I don't understand every aspect of what's going on with my empire.. to use a strange way of saying it, the game doesn't "speak" the dynamics of the various ways to proceed to me in a clear way. I feel like I have to interpret everything as I'm going every game, starting around the midgame. Before that, everything is presented to me in a clear-cut ("clearly spoken") way. But around the mid-game, the gameplay begins to feel muddled. I get bogged down in the details and have to work to stay on top of things, and ultimately feel like it's not worth the effort.

I felt that way for a while. It took me quite a few games on Warlord to feel like I knew what I was doing. Maybe you're playing on too high a level to really get a handle on things enough? Many people seem to not need to really get into the "guts" of a game to enjoy it, but I know I do. You might also try different leaders; there are only a few I like to play with, personally, and the rest just don't suit me.

I also don't usually play games with the end in mind. I want to be doing well the whole time, but once I get close to the end, I have this horrible habit of starting over. I like winning, certainly, but I really play for the experience. Civ 4 really keeps my interest because I'm always needing to stay on top of something or other, but without tedious micromanagement. I micromanage, certainly, but I feel like the tediousness is mostly gone. I think I've actually finished more Civ 4 than Civ 3 games. Of course, the Diplomatic victory has this tendency to creep up on me.

I think that's one major difference between this game and its predecessors; I actually like diplomacy. I'd like to kill that "you traded with our worst enemies" thing, or at least severely tweak it, but I actually care how I'm doing diplomatically now for more than just trying to get people to attack each other or not attack me. I dunno, Civ 4 feels a lot less "gamey" to me in a lot of ways, and even with the redded-out trades, this is one of them. It has what good roleplaying games have, and what strategy games rarely have: immersion. At least for me.

 

[mjs0]

Ultimately, I think part of it is that it's an issue of not being able to see the overall big picture.. you feel like you're too deep in the "forest" of options available to you, and you can't get up on the mountaintop to see the whole forest. The reason for being unable to see the big picture, I think, is that, from start to finish, the variety of pathways to take, are too complex, aren't clearly defined, and aren't differentiated enough.

Very interesting.
Let me start by saying I am not bored by Civ4, in fact far from it.

However, this comment struck a cord with me. I have similar issues with the game when it comes to understanding 'the big picture' and wanting to pull back to see the information and choices at a higher level. I'm not sure I agree with the reason however, I love the complexity of the decisions to be made and the subtle differences between approaches, the effects of which are often not apparent until later, I just want better decision support software!

In other words most of the data I need in order to make my decisions is there and available, it is just spread out and requires a lot of effort to gather and monitor, which for me is one of the few unfun things in the game. As a result, I find that I will often lose track of the lower level things I need to do to follow through with a higher level plan. For example I might have decided at the strategic level to start a war with my neighbour and so I am in the process of building up an army, then several turns later I get distracted by the unhappiness in one of my key production cities and start building a temple rather than another military unit.

What I would really like to see is an option to get a situation report (sitrep) at the beginning of each turn that would summarize my progress towards goals I have set and notify me of key events that have happened or are about to happen. This would, for me at least, give the game a more strategic feel. I feel at the moment as if I am making lots of little decisions that are supposed to add up to a strategy but there is no way to check the coherency of my approach at a high level. (I know this would not suit everyone's style of play so it should definitely be optional.)

PS. If that sitrep could include in large flashing red letters the fact that Catherine just landed an army of Cossacks four tiles from my capital so I don't miss the fact it happened I would be really happy!


Edit: I just noticed your later update and this quote summarizes beautifully how I feel, I guess it just doesn't ruin the experience as badly for me as it seems to for you...

But I don't know, I feel like in Civ4, I don't understand every aspect of what's going on with my empire.. to use a strange way of saying it, the game doesn't "speak" the dynamics of the various ways to proceed to me in a clear way. I feel like I have to interpret everything as I'm going every game, starting around the midgame. Before that, everything is presented to me in a clear-cut ("clearly spoken") way. But around the mid-game, the gameplay begins to feel muddled. I get bogged down in the details and have to work to stay on top of things, and ultimately feel like it's not worth the effort.