iamdanthemansta
Edward of Woodstock
I wish the religion aspect was a little more agressive, what's the point of a theocracy if you can't kill the infidels.
So, what do we find "bad" about Civ4?
- Thread starter Kinseek
- Start date
I haven't played yet... but I have played all the other Civs... and I really hated ICS... I always liked a compact civ with almost every city having nearly every improvement... [naturally i couldn't beat the higher levels]... it sounds like this game favors that? or it favors it so much that its not fun?
Myartar
Yeah, I'm back
My only real complaint so far is the load times for new and saved games. I'm running a fairly respectable system, and I've had to wait almost 10 minutes for a huge world save game to load. I don't like that at all.
texasrunner
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Messages
- 3
I have the usual complaints about the silly tinicon-based interface (with a mouse over system which seems to only work some of the time), cluttered screens, very poor civapedia, and small land masses even on huge.
I could just deal with all that.
Here is what I simply hate: the tech speeds are sooo fast compared to the unit production speeds, the worker speeds, and the time it takes to build city improvements. My current civ (rome) has legionaries and spearmen and the technology for nukes and tanks.
The epic game setting should slow down research, but not building/improving speeds. I don't want to spend 25 turns waiting for a settler to come out of one of my 5 cities. I definitely don't want to spend 25 turns waiting for a settler and simultaneously complete 6-8 research projects.
The current system emphasizes combined arms (which all the reviewers loved) simply by allowing you to produce guys with sticks on turn 2 and the starship enterprise on turn 8. (Of course you can't upgrade your stickman because the upgrade costs are crazy.)
I could just deal with all that.
Here is what I simply hate: the tech speeds are sooo fast compared to the unit production speeds, the worker speeds, and the time it takes to build city improvements. My current civ (rome) has legionaries and spearmen and the technology for nukes and tanks.
The epic game setting should slow down research, but not building/improving speeds. I don't want to spend 25 turns waiting for a settler to come out of one of my 5 cities. I definitely don't want to spend 25 turns waiting for a settler and simultaneously complete 6-8 research projects.
The current system emphasizes combined arms (which all the reviewers loved) simply by allowing you to produce guys with sticks on turn 2 and the starship enterprise on turn 8. (Of course you can't upgrade your stickman because the upgrade costs are crazy.)
Nicole
Chieftain
Soryn Arkayn said:
I agree with every one of your points, but you're especially right here. It makes upgrading your military units much more difficult to go from city to city to do it.
[My current civ (rome) has legionaries and spearmen and the technology for nukes and tanks. ]
Holy chite no kidding, that's messed up man. lol legos and spear and techo for nukes and tanks hahahahahaha.
I think they should have made research values much higher instead of unit and building costs. Doesn't make sense to not slow down research also.
Actually though since CIV II there's hardly any ancient wars anymore, boy, not like their used to be in CIV I & II. You actually got to play with your legos and archers an ELEPHANTS (CIV II).
I noticed in CIV III it's more of a Medieval/Gunpower game of warfare on into WWI and modern of course.
I'm still looking for the CIV game that the timeline is about 5 years per turn heh and everything including buildings, units and research works on that level so it advances at a perfect rate and then one can have lots of wars in all eras instead of the mad dash to gunpowder and tanks.
I like a game with lots of units like CIV III had and be able to play with lots of civilizations on a huge map where a bunch get loads of settlements up in the 15's to 20's. Ain't gonna happen with CIV IV already tested it out.
Holy chite no kidding, that's messed up man. lol legos and spear and techo for nukes and tanks hahahahahaha.
I think they should have made research values much higher instead of unit and building costs. Doesn't make sense to not slow down research also.
Actually though since CIV II there's hardly any ancient wars anymore, boy, not like their used to be in CIV I & II. You actually got to play with your legos and archers an ELEPHANTS (CIV II).
I noticed in CIV III it's more of a Medieval/Gunpower game of warfare on into WWI and modern of course.
I'm still looking for the CIV game that the timeline is about 5 years per turn heh and everything including buildings, units and research works on that level so it advances at a perfect rate and then one can have lots of wars in all eras instead of the mad dash to gunpowder and tanks.
I like a game with lots of units like CIV III had and be able to play with lots of civilizations on a huge map where a bunch get loads of settlements up in the 15's to 20's. Ain't gonna happen with CIV IV already tested it out.
Ravinhood said:
Only had the game two days, and I am already getting this feeling of "what went wrong".
As the OP said, the Civilopedia pretty much sucks. Played about 5 games so far, and I spend most of my time hitting the ENTER key.
I also agree with the posters that said the new advisors are terrible - especially the military advisor. It took me almost 15 minutes of searching to find a couple of lost warrior explorers left over from 3500 years ago. I could no longer just go to the screen and click on them, nor could I pull up a simple screen to see what units were where.
In the Science advisor - in CIV3 you could click on the end tech that you wanted, and it would research all those techs leading up to that automatically. Now I can't do that. I click on it, and still each turn I have to select which tech I want to research next.
Religion: Must have lost their nerve at the last minute. Completely harmless and cute but useless addition to the game as it stands. Let's have some historical reality here!
Mouse-Over Problem not noticed.
Civilopedia could use some work, I think. Don't care for it as it is.
The "advisor screens" need an interpreter or commentator. Maybe in a later patch.
City Screen is not as easy to work with as Civ III's. Build List is really kludgy. What is this icon's thing? Firaxis needs to research Alphabet!
What I Think: Is that a lot of stuff got cut in the interests of time for an early release. Maybe it gets put in later. We can hope.
Mouse-Over Problem not noticed.
Civilopedia could use some work, I think. Don't care for it as it is.
The "advisor screens" need an interpreter or commentator. Maybe in a later patch.
City Screen is not as easy to work with as Civ III's. Build List is really kludgy. What is this icon's thing? Firaxis needs to research Alphabet!
What I Think: Is that a lot of stuff got cut in the interests of time for an early release. Maybe it gets put in later. We can hope.
ACEofHeart
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 184
I loved Civ I,, thought Civ 2 was fantastic.. It took me awile to warm up to Civ3 but once I did I enjoyed it very much.
So,,while I'll never discourage change..I just feel the gameplay for Civ4 is too sluggish even at "normal" speed.. The City screen is cumbersome ,, simple selections just take too long.. The whole Zooming in And out does nothing for gameplay..its just for video card exercise.. I'll keep playing it but I feel I'll end back at Civ3 in a week...
So,,while I'll never discourage change..I just feel the gameplay for Civ4 is too sluggish even at "normal" speed.. The City screen is cumbersome ,, simple selections just take too long.. The whole Zooming in And out does nothing for gameplay..its just for video card exercise.. I'll keep playing it but I feel I'll end back at Civ3 in a week...
ACEofHeart said:I loved Civ I,, thought Civ 2 was fantastic.. It took me awile to warm up to Civ3 but once I did I enjoyed it very much.
So,,while I'll never discourage change..I just feel the gameplay for Civ4 is too sluggish even at "normal" speed.. The City screen is cumbersome ,, simple selections just take too long.. The whole Zooming in And out does nothing for gameplay..its just for video card exercise.. I'll keep playing it but I feel I'll end back at Civ3 in a week...
Still trying it out with different options, but I have having that same horrible feeling..
And I agree with nearly all of what you see as problems.
vingrjoe
Landlocked Shipwright
My biggest gripe is naval warships and land based arty not being able to bombard units. Oh sure, you can bombard a city, and have a chance to damage the units in the city, but you can't directly target a unit with arty or warships for bombardment like in Civ3. In Civ3, the abiltiy to bombard land and sea units with my arty or warships was a very important factor in my games.
Zany
Prince
I agree with you on everything except for religion. The Civilopedia is hideous, not at all easy to navigate and just not high quality. The Civ 3 one was near perfect. The science advisor isn't absolutely horrible like the Civilopedia, but it still could use a major overhaul. Those pictures of units, not the names, almost ruin the game. In Civ 3 you saw the full picture of the unit, not a headshot, the full graphic though minimized, and the unit/tech/whatever's name. The Civ 4 interface makes too much use of small windows and as few words as possible.
This mouse-over stuff is also really annoying. Posting screenies of the game, I noticed that when I minimize the Civ 4 window by bringing up the start menu, if you leave any screen within the game open, you can't play any more. For example, I took a pic of diplomacy with Huayna Capac. When I brought the window back up, the "Farewell... (EXIT)" option is blocked by a transparent layer of the RTS-style interface. I couldn't even re-start the game, I had to load from the last save. The Civ 3 interface was beautiful and very well-conceived. I never liked RTS-style interfaces much, but Civ 4 really brings it down to another level of dissapointment. Remember the espionage screen in vanilla Civ 3? In Civ 3 PTW it was overhauled to a very beautiful screen with all the civ leaderheads and diplomatic or spy options right there. Civ 4 needs a massive interface overhaul for the next XP.
And my main gripe is modding the game. This "powerful" world builder has some nice features, but it suffers the same interface problems as the main game and you can't change the rules! I complained a lot about the Civ 3 scenario editor, but it is far superior to the Civ 4 one, except for being accessible in the main game, that's nice. I want a scenario editor in which you can change the rules and add civilopedia entries. A true modding program with a finely-tuned GUI.
Civ 4 is definitely a step in the right direction, for the most part. However, it is not remotely as playable. When I first got Civ 3, I was hooked from the beginning. Civ 4 I was excited for, but it's just an obnoxious failure after too long. Or maybe I'm just cranky from hours of gameplay.
Also, it does suffer some features problems. The tech tree is disjointed, you go through phases in which all you hear is Leonard Nemoy's voice, the game isn't changed at all. Then the game is turned on its head. A more steady progression (but of course with periods in which things don't advance as much and also some more technological booms, but still consistent) is sorely needed. I am just whining now, I don't really hate the game this much. However, if I wasn't such a sap and hopeful for an improving XP, I would return it.
Sorry, Firaxis, you really dropped the ball on this one. Many good core elements, religion and such, but poorly executed.
This mouse-over stuff is also really annoying. Posting screenies of the game, I noticed that when I minimize the Civ 4 window by bringing up the start menu, if you leave any screen within the game open, you can't play any more. For example, I took a pic of diplomacy with Huayna Capac. When I brought the window back up, the "Farewell... (EXIT)" option is blocked by a transparent layer of the RTS-style interface. I couldn't even re-start the game, I had to load from the last save. The Civ 3 interface was beautiful and very well-conceived. I never liked RTS-style interfaces much, but Civ 4 really brings it down to another level of dissapointment. Remember the espionage screen in vanilla Civ 3? In Civ 3 PTW it was overhauled to a very beautiful screen with all the civ leaderheads and diplomatic or spy options right there. Civ 4 needs a massive interface overhaul for the next XP.
And my main gripe is modding the game. This "powerful" world builder has some nice features, but it suffers the same interface problems as the main game and you can't change the rules! I complained a lot about the Civ 3 scenario editor, but it is far superior to the Civ 4 one, except for being accessible in the main game, that's nice. I want a scenario editor in which you can change the rules and add civilopedia entries. A true modding program with a finely-tuned GUI.
Civ 4 is definitely a step in the right direction, for the most part. However, it is not remotely as playable. When I first got Civ 3, I was hooked from the beginning. Civ 4 I was excited for, but it's just an obnoxious failure after too long. Or maybe I'm just cranky from hours of gameplay.
Also, it does suffer some features problems. The tech tree is disjointed, you go through phases in which all you hear is Leonard Nemoy's voice, the game isn't changed at all. Then the game is turned on its head. A more steady progression (but of course with periods in which things don't advance as much and also some more technological booms, but still consistent) is sorely needed. I am just whining now, I don't really hate the game this much. However, if I wasn't such a sap and hopeful for an improving XP, I would return it.Sorry, Firaxis, you really dropped the ball on this one. Many good core elements, religion and such, but poorly executed.
herkulease
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 10
I find religion to be well utterly useless. what's strange is when I do a try to have a state religion, some of my cities are something else.
oh and the civolpedia sucks so bad no words can describe it. Its like a big giant leap backwards
oh and the civolpedia sucks so bad no words can describe it. Its like a big giant leap backwards
Zany
Prince
Also, there aren't enough units. And the promotions aren't that great. I love the idea of it, it could be a killer feature, but it is again, poorly executed. What use do I need of defending jungles or hills? If there is an invasion coming through hills or jungles, great, I would use it. However, that unit is stuck forever, even if in tundra he'll still have jungle bonuses. All my units get strength and city attack or defense bonuses. They need to be MUCH more balanced. It is not at all like the developers said it was, they told us we were going to have to specialize units and make tough decisions on promotions. No such thing. I just pick the promotions that make my unit stronger.
However, they have done a number of great things. What I really love is civics and what they've done with resources and terrain improvements. However, trade is still confusing and not well implemented. One thing about civics I would like is if you have a trait (like, say, Organized could get it?) or special late-era tech (maybe something similar to Democracy or Constitution, as those are about the will of the people and defining a government) that allows you to create your own civic. You should only be able to create one in two categories, and it should go by some WELL-BALANCED AND REFINDED system of ratings so you create the civic you want. You won't be able to do something like -75% war weariness (oh yeah, and what is with the use of smiley or angry faces? How about WORDS?!) and +200% great people birth rate, you would have to balance pros and cons alongside the upkeep cost.
ANOTHER EDIT: I think the Great People system is well-implemented. However, these specialists things are confusing and poorly executed, like the whole rest of the game.
I am really getting angry at the game. Oh well, back to good old C3C.
However, they have done a number of great things. What I really love is civics and what they've done with resources and terrain improvements. However, trade is still confusing and not well implemented. One thing about civics I would like is if you have a trait (like, say, Organized could get it?) or special late-era tech (maybe something similar to Democracy or Constitution, as those are about the will of the people and defining a government) that allows you to create your own civic. You should only be able to create one in two categories, and it should go by some WELL-BALANCED AND REFINDED system of ratings so you create the civic you want. You won't be able to do something like -75% war weariness (oh yeah, and what is with the use of smiley or angry faces? How about WORDS?!) and +200% great people birth rate, you would have to balance pros and cons alongside the upkeep cost.
ANOTHER EDIT: I think the Great People system is well-implemented. However, these specialists things are confusing and poorly executed, like the whole rest of the game.
I am really getting angry at the game. Oh well, back to good old C3C. This game is much much less boring than CIV3. MOST people and MOST civilization fans would definitely agree on that.
In CIV3, you may have larger areas, more cities, cleaner interface... But you simply do not have as many INTERESTING DECISIONs to make than in CIV4. You MUST sprawl your cities as fast as you can before AD. Most of the time your workers in CIV3 could only road or mine every square. Units management are simple & boring. And you simply feel you don't have as many technologies or wonders than in CIV2, since most of them are of lesser value & don't create many new strategic options for you.
Actually the only way to get some fun in CIV3 is through war & conquer, otherwise the whole game would be very straightforward and boring. But since AI cheats you terribly even on the easiest difficulty, and the advantage enjoyed by early "advanced" units are so easily offset by "bad luck", early war in CIV3 probably will just give you more frustration than fun.
CIV4 might seem to be slow at first, but before long you will have so many strategic options to choose so the game will never be boring again. And you just know that next time you can adopt a completely different overall strategy and still have many new paths to go. CIV4 might not be good enough, but the word "boring" should never apply to it.
In CIV3, you may have larger areas, more cities, cleaner interface... But you simply do not have as many INTERESTING DECISIONs to make than in CIV4. You MUST sprawl your cities as fast as you can before AD. Most of the time your workers in CIV3 could only road or mine every square. Units management are simple & boring. And you simply feel you don't have as many technologies or wonders than in CIV2, since most of them are of lesser value & don't create many new strategic options for you.
Actually the only way to get some fun in CIV3 is through war & conquer, otherwise the whole game would be very straightforward and boring. But since AI cheats you terribly even on the easiest difficulty, and the advantage enjoyed by early "advanced" units are so easily offset by "bad luck", early war in CIV3 probably will just give you more frustration than fun.
CIV4 might seem to be slow at first, but before long you will have so many strategic options to choose so the game will never be boring again. And you just know that next time you can adopt a completely different overall strategy and still have many new paths to go. CIV4 might not be good enough, but the word "boring" should never apply to it.
