Returning to Civ IV

[madscientist]

Example my most recent Immortal loss as Hatshepsut.

Random map which looks like a big/small map. All leaders close and cosy, Sury to the east, FDR and Hannibal to the north, Will uber-north, Mansa south. Eventually find Bismark off-continent.

War Chariot rush Sury cause I don't trust him. Too much military early and he creeps me out.

Hannibal attacks FDR, I join the dogpile takign half the American lands. Us Americans are saps as the AI.

Attack Will as I try to get the AP to launch a holy war. Sneak attacked by Mansa who fight's poorly. Get teh AP against Will, I eventually take most of his land and vassal him.

As I am directing my troops to the south against Mansa, a friendly Bismark decided he hates my vassal and declares war on me, causing me to get peace with Mansa, redirect north to reclaim what is justifiably my former Dutch lands I rightfully stole from Will. We get Peace.

As Mansa techs and techs I use the limited Cavalry advantage and war a long but productive war against Mali as a small Hannibal gets Assembly Line and "Has enough on his hands"

As soon as my army defeats Mansa and tries to regroup, Hannibal sneak attacks with massive numbers of infantry. Regardless of getting AL myself and abusing the draft, Hannibal proves too strong and the game is lost as Bismark laughs across the water at Pleased but yet does not like me enough to join the fun.

Now I have no map or screenshots, but based on personalities you can imagine it happening. Right now Civ V just does not have the game.

 

[lymond]

You lost as Hatty!!! For Shame!!!

 

[madscientist]

You lost as Hatty!!! For Shame!!!

I know, I Know.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

there are a couple innovations on V, but they are very poorly executed.


Like embarking for example. It should have been implemented smarter.
For instance, you need a Technology to allow for the building of Naval Bases. These can be either an improvement or a Coastal City building (not sure which would be better). Embarking is still possible without transports, but only through the tile that contains the Naval Base. Also, when units embark, they need to bring along a certain amount of food or Gold or something.

1upt I think brings up a good debate in SoD vs. no SoD. Personally, I like stacks of doom, and 1upt is nearly a game killer. I would be open to "smart" ways to limit SoD by the way of penalties or a mass cap.

Ranged attacks also. I dont find that innovation all that enjoyable, but I think it has potential if it was implemented "smarter".

City States idea had potential, but the way they are is a game-killer for me. Cannot stand these abominations.

And Nintendo strategy games had better AI than this.

Do you think embarking was really a "feature", or was it necessary because of 1UPT and simply sold as such? I never had a problem with transporting troops personally, I've done so in games for decades now.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Interesting new article on Apolyton. One of the first thing the guy mention is lack of variety/diversity in CiV as compared to 4 or earlier games.

From the Apolyton article:

in Civilization V I think I have to build armies early, or the barbarians will become a major issue.

So far the Barbarians in Civ V seem about on-par with Civ IV, with the interesting twist of capturing and abducting non-combat units instead of just obliterating.

I have to adopt certain policies in early gameplay, as the benefits of a few outweigh others in a developing civilization.

Like Slavery? Again, this seems to be more a question of change of pace than lack of diversity.

I must micro-manage my workers, or they do something silly.

And this differs from any other Civ game . . . how?

The early choices in Tech are now massively simplified as religion does not play a part, and this seems to give less choice early on as to what direction to take.

Yes, they removed the religious game, which is one of my objections to Civ V. However, I don't believe the tech tree gives less choice early on (the bottlenecks are midgame), just different kinds of choice than the ones Civ IV gave you.

Edit: And the rest of the article was self-contradictory enough to put the first impressions on dubious ground, as well.

 

[cabert]

good debate although somewhat tense (unnecessarily so IMHO)

I downloaded the demo, played it once, uninstalled the demo and steam immediately afterwards.
I just spent 6 hours on this thing (slow on my computer) and had no fun.
And I didn't even abuse the AI's dumb moves!

 

[ylea]

I have not been so disappointed since I found out that I would have another brother. I like the old stack attack strategy. and possibility to regulate my taxes¨, reserch and espionage. It is to many civics in civ 5, it is confusing as hell, shore the civ 4 needs more civics but not like a 100 civics. I wait until civ 6 has come out.

 

[Iranon]

I had my reservations, and after trying the demo and reading up on other people's experience I doubt that civ5 can provide long-lasting challenge or entertainment at the moment. Clawing my way up the diffficulty levels of civ4 with a lot of help from the forum was a lot of fun, and the last two steps really required getting familiar with the game mechanics and understanding the finer points of the game. Much would improve with a decent AI, but even then...

For the last few games, the civ series faced the problem of having a gameplay naturally favouring an ICS coupled with slightly arbitrary measures to keep it from being the dominating approach. As far as I can tell, civ4 is the only one to get it right - compact and sprawling empires are both viable, the mechanics are neither too easily exploited nor do they feel too heavy-handed.

The changes in the City Size : City Area ratio in Civ5 make it a lot less important to make the most out of the available land, removing some of the organic growth of an empire. Occasionally to the level of making it feel like playing on an infinite featureless plain.

1upt feels strange given the strategic scope of the games. While I like the idea of building a tradition instead of here-and-now optimisation, I'm not sure the social policy model does a good job of that. Removing the sliders only to make it so easy and efficient to convert gold into almost anything else also appears an odd choice.

*

I've had a lot of fun with Civ4, but I may have reached the end of its replay value for me, or at least a point where I need a longer break. I haven't really made any interesting discoveries in some time, and given that I like picking apart games at least as much as I like playing them this reduces the appeal considerably.

 

[wingsoverithaca]

No. What is outrageous was watching Greg, who is affiliated with Firaxis and was quite involved with the title, get his ass totally kicked beyond belief by the stupid AI, while being watched by thousands live.

Oh yah, he wasn't even playing deity LMAO!

I still don't know if maybe it was a ruse to TRICK potential customers into thinking the AI was actually tuff for a change.

yes, i agree this was a marketing trick. i think my dog would do better at civ 5 than greg did.

 

[pincus]

I'd never played Halo until Civ 5 came out.

 

[Archredbeard]

Reason: Same as already stated by many others + my experience with the "diversified personality of the leaders" Explanation follows.

I made a continents map, with 10 leaders as Songhai, looking to smack all around and capitalize on hes ability, the increased gold from razing and embarking etc.

I was on my own continent, so, I decided to try out the culture win instead. Boring !

What was "interesting" was that Rome on one landmass annihilated Hiawatha, Gandhi and Wu, while on the other landmass, Alex cleared out Napoleon, Suleiman, Catherine and the Thai(whatshesname), then they BOTH settled for killing off the CS that was left, all the while let me in peace

I started the initial autosave again, to try a diff approach, this time aiming for Space, to see what was different when going peacefull for victory.

This time Gandhi wiped all, that is he started tearing down the Chinese Wall brick by brick lastly killing Wu, then he went and killed the last of the Mohicans(errrm Iroquese, I know )and lastly he burned Rome, while throwing Augustus to the lions in the end.
On the other continent, this time the Thai(whatshesname) did the bad thing to hes 4 neighbors, leaving me alone with 2 superpowers, BOTH doing nothing to prevent my departure from Earth

I tried for a diplo too, on the same save, np at all, just befriend the remaining CS , only this time around, it was Hiawatha that nailed all, and Cathy on the 5 leader continent

On a sidenote, regarding the lack of dipplo, I rejected each and every demand/beg from everyone in all the games, no matter how strong they became.
Still no dows in either of the games, i had OB, research aggreements and bying selling stuff to everyone, until said leader got wiped.
Did they ask me to join a war ? A LOT !!
Still i refused each and every time, just to see when they got pissed at me for not declaring on their worst enemy etc. but, they never cancelled COOP pact, .....errrm, not entirely true, in the game where Gandhi became a superpower, HE actually did cancel.
Reason: I declered war on a CS to please my neighbor CS, after that point he called me a Warmonger , I mean, come onnn, you just annihialated all on your continent, including CS there .........BUT, did he prevent me from going to space after that, nope, didnt even refuse to OB next time around

That cemented it for me, there is absolutely no diff between the leaders, I have had Gandhi early dowing me, after he settled very close to me, then started bickering about ME settling

I mean, seriouly, there HAS to be diversity in approach to and from the leaders, to make CIV 5 just a BIT interesting, aka who prefers Shaka/Alex/Monty as neighbors over Gandhi, Mansa(coward) or Hatty.

That and all the rest that needs redoing/work done in CIV 5 made me close it down, until it gets really patched etc, so, im back watching you all

Btw, looking forward to follow the RPC as it unfolds, Mad

 

[DrabbleOne]

I haven't had the chance to play CiV, my laptop not having the moxy to run it yet, but have been eagerly reading your comments posted over the last few month's (slightly enviously as I need a new PC before I get a go)

Having read them though, to a certain extent I'm in no rush. There are elements I find really intriguing (hex's blah blah), but you're all putting me off for the time being.

I harken back to my early Civ4 days, which I purchased straight away. For me the game only really met expectations following Warlords and BtS...which was what, two or three years after release? Then it was taken to a whole new level by the amazing work of the modders (seriously guys, fair play - and thank you!!!)...

I'm currently utterly immersed in either the Neoteric World or the Rise of Mankind 'A New Dawn' mods...they're amazing (give them a go if you haven't), they give me everything and more than I ever wanted from Civ...regardless of how good or bad CiV is, it is going to take years for the expansions and modders to allow it realise it's true potential (assuming it has it which is possibly doubtful from some of your comments)!

I've got no inclanation to go for CiV, because by design (to sell expansion packs of course) it's a long way from the finished product...it will be like going back to Duplo after getting your first set of Technic Lego...

Someone shout me in a few years when CiV Complete is released...

 

[madscientist]

Archredbeard, I have not had that exact same experience but I was certain to see it soon. I gave up before I got there.

The leader variety in Civ IV is so great and so much more ammenable to an RPC I just had to go back.

Now if I can only get my PC back from repairs I can pursue the Jeffersonian MAnifest Destiny.

 

[Abegweit]

I haven't had the chance to play CiV, my laptop not having the moxy to run it yet, but have been eagerly reading your comments posted over the last few month's (slightly enviously as I need a new PC before I get a go)

I actually bought a new laptop in order run V. While I certainly needed a new one, I would never have chosen this one except for the stupid game. Now there's no way I can justify getting another one better suited to what I would like for the rest of my needs (lighter, longer battery life, somewhat less awesome graphics).

 

[drlake]

I actually bought a new laptop in order run V. While I certainly needed a new one, I would never have chosen this one except for the stupid game. Now there's no way I can justify getting another one better suited to what I would like for the rest of my needs (lighter, longer battery life, somewhat less awesome graphics).

heh, I did the same thing, except that I'm thrilled with my new laptop and find it is also excellent at running Civ IV.

 

[Abegweit]

Oh. It's excellent at running Civ4. No question about that. I just would have selected something a little more portable. It still would have been excellent for Civ4.

 

[need my speed]

Well, for me it's the same. I played a game as Ramesess, stopped in the early Renaissance I believe because it was boring, and modded very much (units, buildings, policies, terrain, improvements, resources). Then I started another game as Montezuma on an Earth map which I made myself (with Babylon on it, and more spread out city states), rushed America and the Iroquois with a few Jaguars, decided this was boring somewhere in the early Industrial Age, and quit. I started another game, as Rhamkamhaeng, or whatever his name is, on a continents map that basically was an archipelago map, befriended all the city states, and conquered everyone. I was playing with 12 AI's I believe, on a huge map, and they all had only their capital and no other city. Basically, I conquered my own continent (consisting of Ghandi, Oda, Hiawatha, and 1 other I believe) with 3 Horsemen (although by the time I was ready to declare war on the last AI on my continent, Ghandi, I had updraged them to those special elephants of Siam), then slowly settled my continent (I only got around to settilng three quarter of it at the end), wiped out Alexander and Askia who were together on an island with Knights I think, then I discovered that Askia had 2 cities (which was unique in this game), his second city was on an extremely small island with a city state, and thus I finally conquered him with Riflemen. Then I conquered Augustus who was on an island when I had Infantry I believe, and then prepared to conquer the remaining continent with Montezuma, Darius, Catherine, and another one I believe. And then, only then, when I already had Mechanized Infantry, Montezuma made his third city (his second one, Teotihuacan, if it is the same as in Civilizations IV, had been conquered by the AI I don't remember from that continent, or perhaps it was Persia). Catherine had 3 cities in the most terrible locations on could think of (all in useless snow and ice, with no oil or uranium), and Persia had actually quite a lot cities (well, 6 or so), and even a few on other landmasses. But by that time, I had Mechanized Infantry and Giant Death Robots, and his capital was on the coast. The AI sucks, is no fun, and I agree with every complaint made here.

 

[ahcos]

haha, good sum-up about the retardness that is called "leaders" in civ5.

conquest victory is really laughable, it's just too simple to attack a capital because it seems like the AI just isn't able to act towards this VC when a human aims at it. it's already plain simple to just kill off a landlocked capital, but if the capital is coastal it gets ridiculous. on a side note, i found it to be incredible unrealistic that you win a conquest victory because all capitals are conquered - i mean, i had a game once where alex conquered 90% of the capitals and i simply conquered HIS and made a conquest victory while aiming for culture LOL now how stupid is that? someone else does the hard work and a little sneaky bastards stabs him in the back and wins that way? ********.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Yeah that seems stupid. Surely you should only win if you own everyone's capital.

 

[need my speed]

And more than 75% of your opponent's cities, in my opinion.