In that case, I would have to concede that the game is not for you. Civ is a complex game that does, as I said above, require an investment of time--both playing the game and reading about it--to gain proficiency at it. For many of us, that's part of the fun. Heck, I've devoted over 2 dozen game play-by-play threads (the ALC series) that pretty much recount my own learning process with the game.Yes.
If you have an IQ of 140 and are able to amuse yourself at deity level, that's fine for you.
As for me, I don't see any incentive as to why I should subject myself to a drawn-out and rather frustrating learning process. If this is required, I'd rather invest my time and energy into activities that bring benefits which go beyond proficiency at a particular PC game. When it comes to having fun and relaxing, I'll have to set my sights onto other products.
Enough said.
Exactly, Civ.
It's like the Earth Map.
Some people like playing it, while others(like me), do not like it because it's too boring to know exactly where you are going to start, and what's around you.
Also, are there any mods that situate cities in realistic locations? Right now, I have York to the south of London, to the north west is St Petersburgh and to the south east lies Vladisvostock (spelling?)
Speaking of the Earth Map, can you clear something up for me? With the normal Earth Map (start 4000BC), the countries are clearly recognisable. With the Ice Age start on our little Blue Planet, the countries seem totally different.
In that case, I would have to concede that the game is not for you. Civ is a complex game that does, as I said above, require an investment of time--both playing the game and reading about it--to gain proficiency at it. For many of us, that's part of the fun. Heck, I've devoted over 2 dozen game play-by-play threads (the ALC series) that pretty much recount my own learning process with the game.
I could talk about ancillary benefits I think I've accrued by honing my skills at the game, but ultimately, it is a game and you play it for fun. If it's not fun, move on to something else. I find the challenges, the choices, and the overall learning process involved with Civ to be fun. Apparently you don't, and there's nothing wrong with that. It is, as I said in my first response to you, a matter of personal preference.
Sorry to see you go.
I maintain that if one feels that on is not good at the game at the outset, one is unlikely to become succesful at it at some later stage.
I maintain that if one feels that on is not good at the game at the outset, one is unlikely to become succesful at it at some later stage. This should be frankly but politely communicated to any newcomer, for otherwise he is bound to lose countless hours in the vain hope to improve miraculously.
I fear that in the end, whether one is succesful or not at this type of game boils down to intelligence and talent. As in mathematics or music, exercise, effort and experience might get you so far, but at a certain level of achievement, most people will grind to a permanent halt.
I will go in cycles - I get bored of Civ 4 and don't play it for awhile, and then I absolutely love it again, and can't get enough of it. Unfortunately, I am currently experiencing the former.![]()
If you'd like more historical realism, there's Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. It's cool, althrough it has some elements I don't like and which I either removed (plague) or softened (stability) in my personal version of it. It also includes stuff like dynamic spawning of civs. Here's a screenshot for you to get the style of it:
Spoiler :![]()
Earth18 has predetermined starting locations, while Ice Age has them distributed at random.
This isn't necessarily true. I started @ settler as an absolute beginner in Jan 2008. Going to monarch was quick (2-3 months of play), but after that it got a tad trickier. I'm immortal now though, and won't stop until deity is mine.
People CAN improve. However, if you start off with the mentality that you're capped at some finite limit, you WILL fail. This is a difficulty a lot of people encounter when jumping levels, and some with just generally playing (or competing in real life, even). One's mentality dictates their success just as much as their talent, and has to be carefully monitored by the individual to reach his potential.
In my case, the one thing in civ you could say I have "talent" for in particular is my speed. I play very quickly (2-4 hour games, usually well under 4), which allows me to spam games and learn the patterns faster. Other people are better at planning micro carefully...but you have to find what works. Before that, however, you have to have the mentality that you just KNOW you'll improve...that's a mighty difficult thing to learn, but it applies to a lot more than civ.
I like TW games , but definitely they make justice to the name series... the AI is too eager to start a war and too stubborn to acept peace ( well, Empire is a little less bad, but I had seen a weak AI attacking me because I had weak garissons in a border city, in spite of being #1 in everything..... in 3 turns they were dead ( just needed some rerouting ) ... stupid AI). And their strategical moves make the Civ IV AI look like a 2000 IQ person
About the Ice age scenario: it doesn't have fixed starting positions because Firaxis decided to not put them, the same as every other blank map they shipped ( Europe, Africa..... Earth 18 civs is not blank, because it has the civs already assigned ). It is not that dificult to change that, though.......
On topic: if the OP feels like leaving the game, it is his/her choice. Civ Iv is not a jobAnd all of us already left games behind for several reasons
![]()
I think if I'd used all the time I'd spent playing Civ, I'd have earned another degree, learned another language, made dozens more friends, traveled the country more. That's it! I'm giving up Civ too - right after I teach those f&%*ng Babylonians a lesson, once and for all!