No doubt you should never replace something important in life for civ4 or any other entertainment. But when it comes to entertainment Civ4 is a good choice since it does require you to use your mind a lot more than, for example, TV. If noble is too much there is nothing wrong in moving down a level or two. Those levels are there so you don't have to know everything in order to play civ4.
Some reasons why I have decided to stop playing this game.
- Thread starter AndyRookie
- Start date
katipunero
Prince
sometimes i burn myself out silly playing civ (III and IV) for days, months on end before i finally snap and go into a frenetic episode of uninstalling all my civ games and promising not to play the cursed game ever again. days later, i figure out new things in my head, formulate new strategies of conquest and just lose myself in the game all over again in weeks to follow.
i like, nay love civ because unlike most games it is non-linear. no game in civ plays out the same. there is no predetermined path to victory at all. i used to do cookie cutter builds like pulling off the oracle-pyramids gambit and chariot rushing all the time in the first few turns regardless of the leader and terrain i play and opponents i faced. as you can imagine, my win rate was never spectacular. but then i learned to adopt new strategies and approaches and then my odds in winning my games improved. and i likey much.
i have to agree that civ takes a long long time to master and play well. sometimes involving a lot of frustrating end results and losses along the way. yes you can play at lower difficulties and win easily and in glorious fashion too (chieftain - warlord). but the satisfaction is short lived because then you'd realize there are several more notches of diffculties to play and win before you can say you have truly beaten the game
if they only removed immortal and diety levels, then perhaps the goal of beating the game as iv said would be much clearer and nearer in sight for most players--like me (playng on monarch-emperor atm). that is not the case of course. too bad.
learning civ and playing it to its utmost potential are big challenges and require some sort of serious investment in time and missed opportunities in real life hahaha--and it's downright difficult too if not almost impossible once you play at the higher levels. but hey, it won't be worth doing if it weren't right?
anyway, i guess your mind's made up. good for you i hear real life is so much more difficult than civ. haha. best of luck and may you have many more "turns of play" in your life ahead of you.
*sorry for the long post. this is my first ever in the forums. hmmm.
...so while i'm at it, i'd like to take this opportunity to say hi to y'all and i sincerely hope to have a great time with the community for years to come.
i like, nay love civ because unlike most games it is non-linear. no game in civ plays out the same. there is no predetermined path to victory at all. i used to do cookie cutter builds like pulling off the oracle-pyramids gambit and chariot rushing all the time in the first few turns regardless of the leader and terrain i play and opponents i faced. as you can imagine, my win rate was never spectacular. but then i learned to adopt new strategies and approaches and then my odds in winning my games improved. and i likey much.
i have to agree that civ takes a long long time to master and play well. sometimes involving a lot of frustrating end results and losses along the way. yes you can play at lower difficulties and win easily and in glorious fashion too (chieftain - warlord). but the satisfaction is short lived because then you'd realize there are several more notches of diffculties to play and win before you can say you have truly beaten the game
if they only removed immortal and diety levels, then perhaps the goal of beating the game as iv said would be much clearer and nearer in sight for most players--like me (playng on monarch-emperor atm). that is not the case of course. too bad.learning civ and playing it to its utmost potential are big challenges and require some sort of serious investment in time and missed opportunities in real life hahaha--and it's downright difficult too if not almost impossible once you play at the higher levels. but hey, it won't be worth doing if it weren't right?
anyway, i guess your mind's made up. good for you
i hear real life is so much more difficult than civ. haha. best of luck and may you have many more "turns of play" in your life ahead of you.*sorry for the long post. this is my first ever in the forums. hmmm.
...so while i'm at it, i'd like to take this opportunity to say hi to y'all and i sincerely hope to have a great time with the community for years to come.
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
my pet peeve:
the AI sucks, blatantly. look up the "subsidies and aggressive trading practices" article for a genuine example - a player would probably cancel all deals with you once you cut your half of the "bargain". there ARE games with good AI but civ AI?
Civ AI has to cheat with artificial modifiers, anti-human AI bias, and handicapped modifiers in order to even remain competitive.
i can only play on monarch and i normally lose once i click "end turn" and from one turn to the next - i go from spot 3 in 9 player game - to bottom of the pile because they ALL used their turns to tech each other up so much im on the bottom and all hate me no matter my diplomacy. i may as well be a vassal state.
i only like games with no tech brokering but if i do that i can't play HOF games. i don't even play anymore because of it. i haven't played in almost a year because of how much i hate rolling loaded dice. i wish the difficulty levels increased the intelligence of the AI - instead of buffering them up with handicaps and anti-human bias.
edit - a pre-response to trolls like the poster one up from me: i didn't say i want an easier game - im saying i am annoyed it takes 30 people to make graphics and one guy makes a dummy AI that plays so bad it can only compete by activating cheat mode. once, i used world builder and gave myself the same number of settlers/archers etc i saw all the AI get. (emperor). the AI never stood a chance.
another time, i made a continent with me and the AI pre-set with the same number of cities, units, tech level - everything was a "mirrior" and it was Boudica vs Tokugawa. i played both sides on all difficulty modes - and won easily because the AI has no tactical management skill. it doesn't understand how to organize a stack, it doesn't understand how to defend its key areas, it chases "pawn units". (a unit you run off to make the AI chase so you can send in your real stack 3 turns later). worst of all - the navy. the AI has the worst naval combat EVER.
And - if i ever want my games to be known in the HoF - i can't use a better AI mod, i have to play against super handicaps that i just can't beat.
the AI sucks, blatantly. look up the "subsidies and aggressive trading practices" article for a genuine example - a player would probably cancel all deals with you once you cut your half of the "bargain". there ARE games with good AI but civ AI?
Civ AI has to cheat with artificial modifiers, anti-human AI bias, and handicapped modifiers in order to even remain competitive.
i can only play on monarch and i normally lose once i click "end turn" and from one turn to the next - i go from spot 3 in 9 player game - to bottom of the pile because they ALL used their turns to tech each other up so much im on the bottom and all hate me no matter my diplomacy. i may as well be a vassal state.
i only like games with no tech brokering but if i do that i can't play HOF games. i don't even play anymore because of it. i haven't played in almost a year because of how much i hate rolling loaded dice. i wish the difficulty levels increased the intelligence of the AI - instead of buffering them up with handicaps and anti-human bias.
edit - a pre-response to trolls like the poster one up from me: i didn't say i want an easier game - im saying i am annoyed it takes 30 people to make graphics and one guy makes a dummy AI that plays so bad it can only compete by activating cheat mode. once, i used world builder and gave myself the same number of settlers/archers etc i saw all the AI get. (emperor). the AI never stood a chance.
another time, i made a continent with me and the AI pre-set with the same number of cities, units, tech level - everything was a "mirrior" and it was Boudica vs Tokugawa. i played both sides on all difficulty modes - and won easily because the AI has no tactical management skill. it doesn't understand how to organize a stack, it doesn't understand how to defend its key areas, it chases "pawn units". (a unit you run off to make the AI chase so you can send in your real stack 3 turns later). worst of all - the navy. the AI has the worst naval combat EVER.
And - if i ever want my games to be known in the HoF - i can't use a better AI mod, i have to play against super handicaps that i just can't beat.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
the longest essay complaints point to something.
to hard to win/learn so its better to learn french or something (lol)
and "i can' get into the "Help Our Fun" or whatever HOF is , without cheating."
in essence-if things don't go my way, its the games fault. (lol)
to hard to win/learn so its better to learn french or something (lol)
and "i can' get into the "Help Our Fun" or whatever HOF is , without cheating."
in essence-if things don't go my way, its the games fault. (lol)
Well there's you problem, I could move up to Immortal if I turned off tech brokering. It severely handi-caps the A.I. as they love to trade techs. If you want a more intelligent A.I., turn it back on, Civ A.I. is one of the best A.I. out there, even if it has a few handicaps here and there, its a lot better than most normal games.
Murky
Deity
It could just be a fluke but I won at noble on my first attempt. Prince took a little while longer but quickly became too easy once I had a good feel for how to play.
They real key to winning Civ4 or any other 4x game is optimizing your moves for the maximum advantage. In Civ4, this typically means building a worker first, get early resource technologies, growing and expanding as rapidly as possible. There are also strategic elements like in Chess. You need to anticipate the enemy moves and plan your moves several turns in advance. Also, knowledge of every aspect of the game is important to your planning efforts so read the Civlopedia.
I also recommend reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of Warfare" and "The Prince" by Machiavelli for additional pointers.
The AI in BTS is improved over vanilla but it still allows people to win at even the highest difficulty levels.
Not everyone is good at this type of game nor is it fun for everyone. There are times when I get bored with playing it. If it's not your cup of tea there are lots of other games that may be more appealing to you.
JonathanStrange
PrinceWithA1000Enemies
We should all give up Civ for one week to prove we're not addicts!!
More importantly, give up civfanatics for one week!
I don't know about you guys but I can go several weeks, even months without playing (only partially addicted, you see
). However I can barely a week without keeping an eye on civfanatics. I mean, for all I know anyone could be slandering Drill IV in my absence!
Zack
99% hot gas
More importantly, give up civfanatics for one week!
I don't know about you guys but I can go several weeks, even months without playing (only partially addicted, you see
I agree. I could go without Civ for awhile, but I could only make it a couple days without CivFanatics (40+ Subscription boxes become nightmares after a few days)
r_rolo1
King of myself
On topic:
It looks that troy has a decent head on the shoulders when he's not pretending to be Attacko
@ thadian
Ok, what you said in resume:
NO AI in any game in today's terms is smarter than the average human ( and that includes the hyper-hyped chess AI around, Deep Blue and such included ) and all rely on extensive databases of possible plays or some kind of boosting. And I would say that Civ IV AI, even if somewhat dated, it is still one of the better AI around ... have you tried ETW? That is a dumb as a brick AI in a 2009 game Atleast Civ Iv AI knows to make stacks.......
About the "40 persons on graphics and 1 on coding AI", that is unfortunately true. But i think that you are underestimating the dificulty of making a good AI, especially without extensive beta testing to it......
It looks that troy has a decent head on the shoulders when he's not pretending to be Attacko
@ thadian
Ok, what you said in resume:
It is good to know that
NO AI in any game in today's terms is smarter than the average human ( and that includes the hyper-hyped chess AI around, Deep Blue and such included ) and all rely on extensive databases of possible plays or some kind of boosting. And I would say that Civ IV AI, even if somewhat dated, it is still one of the better AI around ... have you tried ETW? That is a dumb as a brick AI in a 2009 game Atleast Civ Iv AI knows to make stacks.......About the "40 persons on graphics and 1 on coding AI", that is unfortunately true. But i think that you are underestimating the dificulty of making a good AI, especially without extensive beta testing to it......
r_rolo1
King of myself
I haven't said it was Civ IV style. I said that the chess AI also cheated, as it has access to a far more extensive database of possible gambits during the game than a human A chess program without the databases would probably play as good ( or bad ) as any other unboosted AI in the market ( I mean, really calculating the moves, as Civ IV AI does, instead of picking between a huge database of centuries of tried gambits and openings )
A chess program without the databases would probably play as good ( or bad ) as any other unboosted AI in the market ( I mean, really calculating the moves, as Civ IV AI does, instead of picking between a huge database of centuries of tried gambits and openings )
So... winining = fun? 
For me, playing = fun. I just like playing the game. When I get stomped, I accept it and retire, then move on and fire up another one. I'll admit, I certainly don't continue the game and keep playing until another civ achieves victory - I forfeit and retire when I know I've most certainly lost.
So perhaps I should rephrase my equation, lol. (playing towards a victory) = fun.
If winning is the only fun part about it, what about all that time you spend working your way towards that win - is that considered "work"?! What about the games you lose? That total time investment is then not considered fun? What is it then?
I enjoy the games that I wind up losing and retiring from just as much as I do the games I wind up winning.
Also, I think that if you're winning most games, you're playing at a difficulty that isn't challenging enough (there's numerous other civs playing on your map I'm sure). I definitely lose more than I win. It makes your victories much more sweeter.
You don't need to know every little intricacy and detail in order to play the game. Just play it (if you enjoy it) at the correct difficulty and the details will be learned gradually as you play. I loved those "eureka" moments when I finally understood something more clearly - seeing the big picture.
And also... don't concern yourself with what others are playing at. Just do your own thing and make your own rules and enjoy it. If you're playing at Settler, who cares... just have fun. You WILL eventually move up in difficulty over time.
I feel it makes no difference what others say they play at, because you don't know how they manipulate the map or their rules. They could be playing at a different game speed, different sized map, overpopulated or underpopulated with civs, aggressive AI, no tech brokering, etc. etc. There's so many variables that affect the game that you'd have to be playing the same EXACT game in order to compete for bragging rights and compare.
But hey, whatever... If you don't like the game, that's fine, it doesn't affect me. I also don't know why I was lured into even posting into this thread (Maybe I just wanted to stick up for my game) or why the original poster created it (Perhaps you're hoping others can talk you into giving it a chance again?).
In my opinion, Civilization is the greatest series of computer games ever created, and Civ 4 is the greatest of all the civs thus far. It also allows me to play at my own pace and schedule, and allows me to RELAX after a days work. Those FPS and RTS games make me feel hyper and tense. Turn-based, single-player, strategy for the WIN!
For me, playing = fun. I just like playing the game. When I get stomped, I accept it and retire, then move on and fire up another one. I'll admit, I certainly don't continue the game and keep playing until another civ achieves victory - I forfeit and retire when I know I've most certainly lost.
So perhaps I should rephrase my equation, lol. (playing towards a victory) = fun.
If winning is the only fun part about it, what about all that time you spend working your way towards that win - is that considered "work"?! What about the games you lose? That total time investment is then not considered fun? What is it then?
I enjoy the games that I wind up losing and retiring from just as much as I do the games I wind up winning.
Also, I think that if you're winning most games, you're playing at a difficulty that isn't challenging enough (there's numerous other civs playing on your map I'm sure). I definitely lose more than I win. It makes your victories much more sweeter.
You don't need to know every little intricacy and detail in order to play the game. Just play it (if you enjoy it) at the correct difficulty and the details will be learned gradually as you play. I loved those "eureka" moments when I finally understood something more clearly - seeing the big picture.
And also... don't concern yourself with what others are playing at. Just do your own thing and make your own rules and enjoy it. If you're playing at Settler, who cares... just have fun. You WILL eventually move up in difficulty over time.
I feel it makes no difference what others say they play at, because you don't know how they manipulate the map or their rules. They could be playing at a different game speed, different sized map, overpopulated or underpopulated with civs, aggressive AI, no tech brokering, etc. etc. There's so many variables that affect the game that you'd have to be playing the same EXACT game in order to compete for bragging rights and compare.
But hey, whatever... If you don't like the game, that's fine, it doesn't affect me. I also don't know why I was lured into even posting into this thread (Maybe I just wanted to stick up for my game) or why the original poster created it (Perhaps you're hoping others can talk you into giving it a chance again?).
In my opinion, Civilization is the greatest series of computer games ever created, and Civ 4 is the greatest of all the civs thus far. It also allows me to play at my own pace and schedule, and allows me to RELAX after a days work. Those FPS and RTS games make me feel hyper and tense. Turn-based, single-player, strategy for the WIN!
MonRiverMonarch
Oar Master
Ha ha....well said! If I didn't have to waste so many hours on sleep, I could have beaten diety by now
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,290
Maybe that's a thing called expression. He wanted to express himself on a board just for the sake of it. Plus, I'm sure he is not ignorant of the site being browsed by the developpers themselves, so he let them to know about his opinion.
I personnally think that such topics are necessary, in order to see what is good in the game, and what is wrong. What is wrong is that the game is not enough intuitive, with maintenance costs and cottages. But, this is my own opinion, I will not ask to you to have the same.
What I ask to you, is to let any player have his own opinion, without questioning his very presence on this board. Every body has the right to express himself, without questionning about the relevance of his talking. This is a childish attitude I saw way too much on english/american boards, and that annoys me greatly.
In my opinion, Civilization is the greatest series of computer games ever created, and Civ 4 is the greatest of all the civs thus far. It also allows me to play at my own pace and schedule, and allows me to RELAX after a days work. Those FPS and RTS games make me feel hyper and tense. Turn-based, single-player, strategy for the WIN!
Blah, blah, blah...
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Most grandmasters have the same database in their head.
Whut? Are you claiming that chess AI does no calculations during the game? A chess program AI is totally on its own after the end of the opening phase (and to the point of deep endgame, but it's only for relatively rare sophisticated positions that the endgame tablebase will improve significantly over the computer's own evaluation, and many games are decided before the endgame anyway), yet chess programs are still capable of beating humans. Come on, even Chessmaster's egnine plays quite an acceptable opening even when forced not to use any opening books.
And Civ4 AI and Chess AI aren't really that comparable.
And a gambit is a kind of an opening, btw.
r_rolo1
King of myself
I haven't claimed any of that. I meant to say that most of the chess AI calculate what of the possible gambits is better, not calculate what is the better move. And don't forget that all the chess play is in a 8X8 board, with always the same units, with only one oponent...... degrees of magnitude below most of the computer games complexity.
But anyway, you are right: Civ IV and chess are not comparable, given that there are more players, more possible actions, feedbacks, diferent board every game..... It is trivial to make a tic-tac-toe AI, it is easy to make a AI for checkers that never lose against a human by pure number crunching, it it possible to make a chess AI that gives fight without databases, it is hard to make a really competent go AI.... can you see the trend ?
But anyway, you are right: Civ IV and chess are not comparable, given that there are more players, more possible actions, feedbacks, diferent board every game..... It is trivial to make a tic-tac-toe AI, it is easy to make a AI for checkers that never lose against a human by pure number crunching, it it possible to make a chess AI that gives fight without databases, it is hard to make a really competent go AI.... can you see the trend ?
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
That sentence doesn't make sense. (What's your definition of a gambit, btw?)
And Civ also has luck and the fact that it's supposed to be a game of incomplete information. All that is absent in chess, go, etc. I'm not complaining against the Civ4 AI here, I'm just saying that you have some misconceptions on how chess programs work.
