Some reasons why I have decided to stop playing this game.

[Shackel]

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.

 

[Sisiutil]

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.

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.

 

[CivUtd]

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.

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. England looks nothing like England, for example. Now, I know that the Ice Age took a chunk out of England/France to create the English Channel, but surely it should still be clearly recognisable as England? Am I doing something wrong, or is this a known issue?

 

[Lone Wolf]

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?)

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 :

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.

Earth18 has predetermined starting locations, while Ice Age has them distributed at random.

 

[AndyRookie]

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.

Many people advise to hang in there, read the various posts on strategy and improve incrementally. While I am happy to believe that these tipps may help quite a few of us lousy players to win a battle here or there or to last out longer than we otherwise would, 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.

It amazed me to read through the threads started by a certain "Nevordan" and see highly able people giving him fresh pieces of advice over and over again. The reality is that no amount of help will help him or me significantly. There is too much that can and will go wrong. We might build up a huge army but then find the economy is in shambles to our disappointment. Worse still, I will have no cluel how to manipulate my neighbours by using diplomacy and will commit crucial errors in this department, resulting from a lack of situational awarness/intellegence about their abilities and intentions. This goes on and on and on.

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. Building and improving cities and armies over many hours to be able to say "That was I fine game. I finished 5th out of ten at noble and managed to drop 20 nukes on my closest rival (my last try)" is not enough to keep me satisfied. But realistically speaking, that's what is on the cards for me and other players of similar ability.

The larger problem is that my entire life resembles my game-play at Civ. I have no priorities, no strategy, get distracted too easily while time for making any significant changes is beginning to run out. What remains is a tremendously long, dull "late game". I have to quit for my own sake even though it would be more consequent to continue, get really angry and opt for "game over" on all fronts. It's not the game that is to blame it is my utter imperfection everywhere where it counts.

 

[Shackel]

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.

Oh yeah, this game is definitely not for you.

 

[Tiepolo]

A lot of what you are describing as too difficult are things you learn as you progress. You can't win this game from turn one, it takes a long time. Everything comes in steps. You may spend a few games understanding city placement and another few with diplomacy and another few trying to master the balance between economy and military.

My best advice to you is to post a game and have people walk you through it while you post pictures, the save and your progress. Plenty of people do it here and it helps a great deal.

 

[binhthuy71]

AndyRookie,
I'm an Old Guy (Second-oldest here, if the "Birthday" thread is any indication) and I've played Civ since CivI. In every subsequent release it's become more necessary to consider more than just a single aspect of play to do well. You won't win a Cultural victory if you've been vassalized by Monty because you neglected your military and you won't win a Domination victory if your economy collapses under the maintenance costs of your conquests. This is a Good Thing, to me. It instills a manner of thought that causes the player to consider the greater consequences of gameplay decisions: sometimes an immediate gain is not worth the long term costs.
In BtS, the levels beyond Noble require some application and study. If that's not your cup of tea then play at the level that's the most enjoyable for you. You're not putting the level you play at on your resume.
Finally, if it's not fun then don't play.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

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.

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.

It's an interesting thing to fear, but I do understand. It's the same reason that all of us can't become professional athletes ---> they're talented AND they work to improve. Well, the good ones.

However, most healthy humans can train to run a 40 yard dash well under 5.0 seconds. Most can learn to play music to quite a good level (though not pro). Most can do any kind of math, even calculus+ (although in America there is a decided mental stigma against math at the social level, which damages people's mentality when attempting to learn it).

People with the talent to be the best of the best at these things are rare. However, I will argue...strongly...that anything below deity is attainable to anybody with even modest ability, though it will take more work. Even deity is probably possible for everyone some % of the time, but only the truly persistent/talented will win that @ high odds...

The biggest issue with civ is the vast learning curve. There are a LOT of rules, situations, and adjustments to make. In order to take all of them into account, people either have to plan meticulously or see a lot of different situations repeatedly.

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.

 

[Asjo]

AndyRookie, the things that you describe seem like a reason to love the game rather than abandon it. You have it much better than the players who have now mastered the game and are getting bored because the know exactly what to expect. You still have a lot ot discover, and a game that beats you is surely more exciting the one where you can easily beat. I wish I could keep losing in Civilization IV forever, but unfortunately it's not perfect and the AI has many shortcomings. Nonetheless, the way you describe several aspects of the game as boring, I guess there is chance that this game isn't for you. But I hope you aren't getting put off just because the game is not easy.

When I started playing Civilization I as a kid, I had no way what I was doing. Man, that was exciting. Everything was so mysterious and it was extremely interesting to see the effect the units had. It took a while until I realized the effect of settlers, and often I had just one city, hopelessly behind. The same in Civilization II at the beginning. Here I started learning more about the game and started beating it. I had to set up certain scenarios where there was enough action and challenge to enjoy it at the end, until after having tried everything a thousand times it was too much of the same. I didn't play Civilization III, and when me and my friend tried it once for a hot-seat game I was rather put off by the "strange" mechanics of the game as well - never really got into it. I guess I matured for Civilization IV, because here I find the many variations in the game amazing. Compared to earlier game, the graphics made combat pretty interesting, which I guess it what made it easy for me and my friend to approach. We quickly got to terms with the many changes and started liking it. My curiousity has led me to explore many concepts of the game in depth, so it doesn't hold so many mysteries for me anymore. But because of it's depth and how well the gameplay is thought out, I still enjoy it. I'm starting to feel that I might lack a challenge, but fortunately I haven't reached that point yet.

 

[PieceOfMind]

For what it's worth, I'd much rather have a game which provides a wide range of difficulties, many of which are above my level, than a game where I can "clock" it and then get bored with how easy it is.

The fact that deity is near-unattainable for most players is one of the reasons the game has such high replayability.

Indeed, many of us civfanatics follow the Better AI mod which tries to improve the AI decision making even further, turning even the moderate difficulty levels into a greater challenge.

I do feel that with a game like Civ, learning to play it at the same time as most other players did (was it back in 2006?) helps, and it can be hard to jump into the game several years later.

And I completely agree AndyRookie that Civ takes many things aspects of an empire building game to an unusually abstracted level. Improving at the game is not likely to enhance your skills in other parts of your life except maybe general planning, strategies, number-crunching etc. Having said that, I feel with Civ4 (I speak mainly of BtS mind you) that the developers have tuned it to a point where the quality of gameplay is at a high point in terms of interesting decisions to have to make. Unlike previous incarnations of civ, there are a wide range of highly effective strategies and rarely do two games play out in nearly the same way. Not all of the game mechanics will make the most sense but it feels well balanced.

 

[JonathanStrange]

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!

 

[Zack]

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.

 

[CivUtd]

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.

I get that as well with Total War series. God, imagine TW mixed with Civ...

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.

Thanks for the link, I will definitely check that out. Why does Ice Age Earth have random cities?

Edit: Be good when I've got 30 posts/30 days registration, then I can get rid of this dumb avatar. I only used it because it was the only English one available!!

 

[CivUtd]

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.

That was an excellent post and it applies to everything in life. I'm an actor and when I first started training, I was bloody terrible! My acting and singing were lousy and as for my dancing...

Since then, I've performed at the West End twice in one night shows, have appeared in numerous productions and have been on tour a few times. As you said, if you think you'll fail, then you will most definitely fail! I know improving at a PC game and improving one's career are two completely different things, with vastly differering levels of importance, but the principle is the same! And I for one am going to invest a bit of time into Civilisation 4 before giving up on it because, as I said before, the scope of gameplay is massive.

 

[r_rolo1]

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 job And all of us already left games behind for several reasons

 

[CivUtd]

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 job And all of us already left games behind for several reasons

Absolutely. Games are about having fun and if that isn't happening, play a different game! But don't go around thinking that you can't improve at something just because you were lousy to start with. That way lies failure, with everything you care to try.

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

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!

If Civ I hadn't come out in 1991(?) I might have got my *first* degree

Beer and Command & conquer didn't help much either.

 

[AndyRookie]

I appreciate the sensible replies by everyone.

Invariably, I had to take another shot at my latest try and I have to admit that the game is fin many respects fun and challening, particularly between 700 AD and 1700, I find. The deeper difficulty I am facing is that I want to master it, if not at the top level then at least at medium levels. This would entail a massive time effort and constant training.

As much as I'd like to indulge in endless hours of gaming, deeper down I know that I must seriously keep up with other tasks and issues in life. I am now 30 and see the next 10 years as a crucial period and last chance to seriously work on my attitude and attaining further goals. Even though every time in history has both positive aspects and downsides, I firmly believe that the world and the west in particular is headed for more, not fewer difficulties. In the past, I have already wasted much time hanging around, and gaming, for that matter, instead of assuming responsibility and change my life. Another 10 years more down that road and I will rightly be in for some severe trouble.

This is my own personal take on the matter and I do by no means wish to discourage anyone from enjoying the game. I just feel that I should apply whatever strategic and organisational abilities I have to move ahead in real life.

All the best

 

[JonathanStrange]

Best wishes! Perfectionism is a curse and a blessing. More of a curse when it comes to a videogame so perhaps it's all for the best. It was just one of those things. I use Civ to relax and let off steam; either through gaming or going to the forums to enlighten the raging barbarians here (present company excluded, of course).