Pre-game Feedback

[KingCruz]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post this, but if i'm not, im sorry. and youre welcome to delete the thread also the search didnt work

Anyway, I am expected to get the game for christmas. ive heard good things about it, shuffling through the forums, looking at the ratings (most are 9.0-9.5) and through the internet.
I have the demo and really enjoyed it, kept crying, wanting more after the 100 turns were up .

Even though im getting the game anyway I want some personal, direct, feedback from civers who already have the game. Tell me your honest thoughts about the game...

 

[Jimbo30]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post this, but if i'm not, im sorry. and youre welcome to delete the thread also the search didnt work

Anyway, I am expected to get the game for christmas. ive heard good things about it, shuffling through the forums, looking at the ratings (most are 9.0-9.5) and through the internet.

Never, ever believe anything you read on the internet. This is especially true when it comes to gaming.

I have the demo and really enjoyed it, kept crying, wanting more after the 100 turns were up .

Take2 will be delighted to hear that! Looks like the demo works as planned.

Even though im getting the game anyway I want some personal, direct, feedback from civers who already have the game. Tell me your honest thoughts about the game...

Right now, Civ4 is at the same stage as Civ 3 was when it was first released. That is, an unfinished, unbalanced game.

I absolutely hated Civ3 to start with, but eventually it became one of my most played games. I'm hoping that Civ4 will turn out the same, but I'm concerned that the game is too complex and the game-breaking issues it has might be too much to fix.

That's my opinion. When I first bought the game, I played it solidly for a week. Then I left it until the patch came out, then I played it constantly for a week again. I haven't played it in 2-3 weeks since. I'm waiting on the next patch and hoping it starts to address the balance problems.

 

[warpstorm]

I've played it nearly every day for months. Well worth it.

 

[robaughjr]

If the demo worked ok, you shouldn't have any technical problems. The game is great if you can get it to work

 

[KingCruz]

So you're saying it has balance problems like in the unit counter system?

Uh oh I hate when that happens....
Anyway, any more feedback?

but I'm concerned that the game is too complex

It looked like Civ 4 was simpler than Civ 3... Hmmmm

 

[Jimbo30]

So you're saying it has balance problems like in the unit counter system?

No not really. I think the combat system is better than it's ever been.

The balance issues are with production costs for buildings/units vs the speed at which you research new techs. You can easily start building an army of musketman only to find you can build riflemen a few turns later...and riflemen are a *lot* better.

It looked like Civ 4 was simpler than Civ 3... Hmmmm

No it's a lot more complex. It looks simpler but thats not the case. And it's harder, much harder than Civ 3.

 

[KingCruz]

I looked at the chart for units (is that thing updated?)

I think I found a flaw. cause nothing counters axemen in the earlier times.
Axemen gets 5 str. and +%50 against mellee so thats 7.5 str.
So an axemen vs. a swordsman would win. an axemen vs. a archer with city defense would win. and still winning with chariots

This is just raw data. but later units will come by and sweep it out so, not too much worries.

Never, ever believe anything you read on the internet. This is especially true when it comes to gaming.

Then should i believe you?

And it's harder, much harder than Civ 3.

 

[Jimbo30]

I looked at the chart for units (is that thing updated?)

I think I found a flaw. cause nothing counters axemen in the earlier times.
Axemen gets 5 str. and +%50 against mellee so thats 7.5 str.
So an axemen vs. a swordsman would win. an axemen vs. a archer with city defense would win. and still winning with chariots

Axemen blow vs Archers in a city. It's not even close. Archers get 25% for being fortified, another 25% for being behind walls, 25% just for being archers in a city and another potential 45% in upgrades.

Then should i believe you?

No. Of course there's no reason to believe that either. Yes. Hell I dunno, maybe.

 

[KingCruz]

Okay so there is balancing. blah blah, and no corruption or waste as i noticed (which is nice)

Any pluses you would give to the game? And your overall opinion?

 

[Duelingground]

King Cruz, if you're looking for an excellent turn based strategy game, look no further than CivIV.

Religion, IMO, is a great addition, adding yet another factor to diplomacy, and the programmed opponents play a much better game.

You can get a good feel for the game's mechanics by reading through the strategy forum, for a good start, try this thread, and this one.

 

[Sorceresss]

Interesting, Gandhi : I shall meditate on your wise words.

 

[automator]

You're getting it anyway, but you're wondering if people like it?

Personal background: Longtime fan of Warcraft, Starcraft, AoE, MOO2, etc. First played Civ1 on NES a couple years ago. Bought Civ3 and enjoyed it for a year. Bought Civ4 a month ago, and am playing on a slightly below min specs computer.

Why I like cIV better than Civ3 ...

Less tedium: Cities. You aren't in the middle of building your third city when your first city is in a contant state of civil disorder. Unhappy citizens just stop working rather than riot, so you don't need to check in on a city after every point of growth to make sure the happy/unhappy balance hasn't been thrown off.

Less tedium: Workers. No pollution. Thank god. And more choices. When setting up cities you aren't just thinking about what to mine and what to farm, you're thinking farms, mines, windmills, watermills, woodshops, workshops, cottages, camps, plantations ... I think I got 'em all. You can really think about what to do with workers.

No corruption. You're no longer stuck in that position where you colonize that island or continent across the ocean and then have to deal with a city that takes 80 turns just to build a harbor. Corruption is replaced (quite nicely) by nation maintenance. Yeah, it can be a pain. I've had a couple games where I thought I was doing so well by settling half my shared continent in the time the AIs still had 3 cities, only to realize that I was at 20% science and only pulling in 1gpt. But it's a reminder to pay attention to things other than "where's the next settler factory?"

Better war. It's quite simply more fun than building a dozen of the same unit (and maybe half a dozen artillery) then sending them in one stack. And combat upgrades are pretty sweet too.

Open Borders. I always hated ROPs. There'd be no reason for me to build half my empire on the other side of an AI, so why sign a ROP? With OBs, you have reasons to accept them: trade routes, missionaries, nicely improved relations.

Religion. True, it's not perfect, and it's not the game changing thing that some would have you believe, but it's pretty cool. It can affect diplomatic relations, gives you "spying" abilities, and can get some big money into your coffers (found a religion that takes over half the world, then build the shrine).

Pretty graphics. They slow my game down, but they're nice to look at.

Right-click "go to". This was hard for me to get used to, but now I think it's the single greatest improvement.

Diplomatic relations. The ability to take a look at one screen to see how others feel about you and why, and also see how they feel about the others if pretty nice. Keeps you from doing something silly like declaring war against your best trading partner's best friend.

Cultural borders make sense.

More techs.

Better balanced wonders. I always thought something like Art of War was way overpowered. Though now that they're mostly weaker, I'm less likely to build them.

Barbarians who are a real threat. More fun, and more of a pain. You can no longer rely on two spears in your border cities to beat back the "horde" of six barbarian horsemen. You've gotta deal with axemen and swords.

Specialists. Maybe it's because I never understood Civ3 specialists that I think cIV specialists are so cool, but they actually DO something noticable.

What I don't like about cIV ...

I miss the instant feedback from my foreign advisor ("they might not take this deal ..."), but it makes dimplomacy a bit more of a thinking game.

The warning sound made when an enemy destroys your improvements is very, very annoying.

No ability to instantly go to "an enemy spotted ...", though you can use the event log to go through things like that.

No more prebuild. It makes more sense, but I miss it.

In the end ...

You'll probably enjoy it. You'll have issues with some parts of the game and you'll want a patch or mod to fix somethings you don't like. You might have tech issues. But in the end, an entire weekend devoted to playing WILL happen.

 

[KingCruz]

I'm sure of that
Thanks for the feedback automater , theres a good example of nice feedback. Shows (+) and (-) and isnt biased (only - or +).

And write an overall conclusion

 

[KingCruz]

if you're looking for an excellent turn based strategy game, look no further than CivIV.

Also, yeah duel, I have civ3. I just dont play it as often cause it has become too annoying

 

[Velvet-Glove]

I love this game, it's kept me from my real life for more hours than I care to admit (didn't get to bed until 4am last night because of it!).

You say the demo works OK for you and that you cried when your 100 turns were up... in just five days I believe you will cry no more (except when you get crushed by an awesome Civ out for your blood, hehe!).

I'm sure you will love this game. Just warn your loved ones that you may be gone for a little while and be sure to give them a photograph to remember what you look like.

Enjoy, and Merry Christmas to you!

 

[Sunwolf]

I haven't really warmed up to it yet, so I went back to Civ3 until I finish playing through the Conquest scenarios. I can say I really like the fact that units from different Civs can occupy the same tile if not at war with each other.

 

[KingCruz]

Cool
I have a question about Open Borders.
Can you declare war while you have open borders with someone else? And still attack them while you're already in their territory?

 

[BirraImperial]

Cool
I have a question about Open Borders.
Can you declare war while you have open borders with someone else? And still attack them while you're already in their territory?

You can declare war anytime you want, but if you have signed open borders with your enemy, the moment war is declared, your units will be withdrawn to your territory.

 

[Ranos]

Civ 4 is definately better than Civ 3.

I agree with jimbo30 on the balance issue. Civ 3 allowed you to use units for a good length of time after you had researched them. In Civ 4, You research everything so quickly that by the time you have built the first couple of units of one type, the next type has become available. I have never built a Chariot because better units become available too quickly. I rarely build Musketmen because Riflemen are just a couple of techs away. It would be nice to be able to use some of the units longer than is possible.

The graphics are really nice but because of the memory problems, the game slows way down in the late game (especially on huge maps) even with specs that are far above the recommended ones.

The graphics options are also a joke. I personally notice no difference when switching between high and low settings. Turning off animations only means resources no longer move, workers don't show their working animations and enemy units look like statues when in battle. Your units are still animated when moving and attacking, fighters set to sentry still fly around the city and many of the terrain items are still active. Turning off effects only means flames don't shoot out of the chimneys of mines and there aren't explosions from your catapult attacks. There is no way to make the trees quit swaying or the rivers to stop flowing. The carts on mines keep moving and smoke still comes from the chimneys of workshops. I really could care less about knowing which tiles are being worked when I'm not in the city view.

Just to make sure you don't think I am one of those nothing but negative people, I agree with automator on all of his points.

 

[automator]

I can say I really like the fact that units from different Civs can occupy the same tile if not at war with each other.

You know, I don't like this. I liked being able to "herd" the AIs settlers (though to be honest I've only once seen an AI settler in Civ4). I also liked, in the old game, when I'd become the dominant power, churning out battleships and destroyers to set up "blockades" to keep the other powers from invading smaller countries. Just fun.