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

[JonathanStrange]

His chess analogy was deeply flawed as chess software programs in fact are known for their ability to calculate tactics in any position to an astonishing depth - they don't rely on databases for that. Databases for opening and endgame positions are akin to a human studying and (if his memory's can handle it!) remembering; it's hardly cheating. Though we all might wish for such a memory!

However, that said, I think his point was (or should have been ) that Civ IV has a lot more going on than chess does and can't rely on databases of tested high level move by move theory. A chess engine might be able to rely on an opening book for 30 moves if there's no deviation and when it leaves the book, chess engines while theoretically having to deal with all sorts of possible moves and move orders while evaluating their worth, the truth is most possible moves are clearly identifiable as bad.

It's remarkable, imo, that Civ IV plays at well as it does given the far more complicated struggle it faces than does Fritz or Chessmaster or HIARCS with two teams, 32 units, six unit types, 64 squares, opening/endgame databases

Civ IV and chess are comparable: chess lives in a simpler world.

 

[Jaroth]

maybe that's a thing called expression...

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...

Looks like you just disregarded (not even "questioned" at least) the relevance of my own expression. That surely wasn't childish at all.

"Maybe that's a thing called, hipocrisy."

Careful, looks like all the time you spend on these message boards is starting to "Americanize" you.

 

[troytheface]

"Civ IV and chess are comparable: chess lives in a simpler world. "

Fact- the vaunted "Deep Blue" was programmed with the help of like 5 grand masters
to beat one specific opponent

Fact- Attacko could beat Deep Blue

 

[Lone Wolf]

Fact- Attacko could beat Deep Blue

Attacko's mental capabilities are so above the mental capabilities of everyone else, that he is almost irrelevant to that discussion.

 

[troytheface]

lol. it does leave a wide venue for the right man (or woman) to step through.

"the man that beats the computers" - kasparov= worst player ever as he lost- fischer/attacko would have creamed the stupid mass of circuits and protected mankind's intellectual and having luck superiority.

i suggest in the future someone will utilize venn diagrams and catastrophism and claim the title.
see "Attacko's Guide On How to Beat Deep Blue and Civ4 Type AI"

 

[Shackel]

"Careful, looks like all the time you spend on these message boards is starting to "Americanize" you."

- Too bad that I'm American.

Don't be racist(or sub-racist, due to America not really having a main race).

 

[UWHabs]

Everyone wants a better AI. But the problem is if you make a great AI that always beats the best Deity players, how do you balance it for lower levels? Well, you either give the human player bonuses, or you make the AI intentionally screw up. I for one prefer just loading on different bonuses instead of making an intentionally stupid AI for lower levels.

Although the other reason the game's AI seems very bad is that we've all had how much practice playing against it? We've all adapted to it. How much time has the AI had to learn our own strategies? If we had great learning AI in production, and had the computers learn about how you played, it'd be very different. If it learnt that you always keep your inner cities undefended, then it would attack differently, go in for the flank. Or it would see that you rely on Trebs and Cannons, and build more Cavalry to flank away your siege. The only reason the AI seems really easy is that we know its tactics, and pretty much know it's every move.

If all AIs had completely random personalities, gave you no notice about when they were gearing up for war, axe-rushed you very early, it'd be a very different game. Heck, even if you just coded in AIs go always research mining-BW, then if they have copper near them, get it and build tons of axes to rush anyone close (so, often what a human player does), it'd make it a lot tougher. I know I'm pretty safe early game, so often I'll have nobody guarding my cities. That's why even the best deity player might lose to a "noble-level" player playing in a multiplayer game - it's all unexpected.

I mean, wasn't it civ 2 or 3 where one of the big things pre-release was that nobody had beaten the Deity AI? But after enough playing, you learn the tricks, and it all becomes easier.

Just my little rant about computer AIs. I'd love if we could have a more adaptable AI that learned everyone's individual tactics. That'd be a crazy computer game.

 

[Smidlee]

His chess analogy was deeply flawed as chess software programs in fact are known for their ability to calculate tactics in any position to an astonishing depth - they don't rely on databases for that. Databases for opening and endgame positions are akin to a human studying and (if his memory's can handle it!) remembering; it's hardly cheating. Though we all might wish for such a memory!

It's cheating as much as the Civ AI gets more resources is cheating yet plays the same rules(they are really handicaps). One of the main reason for a chess program relies so heavily an open library (as well as needed help in the endgame) is to cover it's main weakest ; no long term strategy. A human doesn't have to memorized all those opening moves only the general strategy behind the openings. After the program leaves it's opening library it's uses the brutal force of trial and error. thus it's nothing but a search engine.

In order to beat a good chess program your long term strategy has to be good enough to be beat the depth of it's search engine. Chess programs opening library, just like the playing Civ4 on deity, narrows down the number of "winning strategies" that can beat the AI.

 

[Shackel]

Well, the theoretical perfect AI would only have a few weaknesses, most would require a VERY specific strategy to force the AI out of all of it's options before even TRYING to play.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Looks like you just disregarded (not even "questioned" at least) the relevance of my own expression. That surely wasn't childish at all.

"Maybe that's a thing called, hipocrisy."

Careful, looks like all the time you spend on these message boards is starting to "Americanize" you.

I am sure you can do better than finding contradictions in my own post.

That shows that you did not really understand what I said.

 

[PreLynMax]

The OP's post is the main reason why I stopped playing Civ 4 above Noble (which is a normal difficulty). I agree with that post wholeheartly. I constantly have to reload because of my low tolerance of the game.

 

[Psyringe]

The "problem" of the OP is, imho, simply that he wants a hame to *master* (not only play and enjoy, but truly master), while not spending a lot of time learning how to do that. And he picked a game that, while certainly enjoyable without "mastering" it, *does* require a certain time investment to master. The OP's wishes and preferences are fine, but as others already pointed out, Civ4 isn't the right game for him.

It's worth noting though that it is by no means *required* to master Civ in order to enjoy it. For example, if you just want to immerse yourself in the feeling of guilding a civilization through the ages, you can do so even while totally ignoring half of the game mechanics. You just pick a lower difficulty level.

For the OP, that wouldn't be satisfactory though since he wants to have the feeling of having mastered the game. This excludes stepping down the difficulty - and for a complex game like Civ, if you want to *master* it (instead of just enjoying it), you really need to spend a lot of time on that. Hence, the OP is after something that Civ4 cannot, and should not, offer him (because if Civ4 *did* give him what he wants, it would compromise the enjoyment of the people who like the complexity of the game).

I think the recommendation to try CivRev was the best answer he got.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

It's worth noting though that it is by no means *required* to master Civ in order to enjoy it.

This is so true. I'll never master it, and I'll never try to, but I enjoy every game I play.

 

[r_rolo1]

About the discussion of the AI:

I never , ever , asked for a AI that can beat the best deity players ( in fact that is quite easy to do: simply say to the AI to be able to dow in the first 20 turns ( the coding is that they assume no one will do that ) ... with the extra units they have on deity , the human would be creamed in 80% or more of the games ). What I asked ( ad nauseam ) is a AI that can pass a Turing test of Civ IV. For those that don't know what is a Turing test, it means that I want a AI that plays in a way that I can't discern between it and a regular human ( by definition: Noble level ( a real noble level, because the AI still has a good chunk of bonuses @ Noble ) ). The current AI does not fulfill that and in some regards it is actively coded to not fulfill that ( AI not rushing extra early when it has extra units, for a quick example... there are others ) ... Not that I want a slugfest ( I am also against putting more units in the field as bonus for the AI .... ) ... I just want a AI that will think on what I'll do with a tech when it considers if it will trade it with me or that thinks twice about going to Electricity without getting rifling and grenadiers when their neighbour is drafting like a madman and vassaling everyone around or even a AI that does not rely in putting 4 CG II archers in every city for defense when the inner cities are pretty much safe......

 

[PreLynMax]

The OP's post is simply what most causal players think of Civ 4 when he picks up the game. Case in point: Empire Earth II. I've been playing EE2 as long as Civ 4 (5 years), and although EE2 isn't as complicated as Civ4, it is one the most complicated games in my shelf. Basicly put, EE2 is like Age of Empires II and Civ 4 combined, basically to build a civilization that can stand the test of time, you can even go from caveman era to modern era to (what Civ 4 dosen't provide) the future era basically by teching up. Now I can pretty much run with the best of what the EE2 AI can offer, and can easily defeat the game on Normal. There was no stagnation of skill in EE2 as it was in Civ 4. What sets Civ 4 different is that I have been playing it since (maybe a few weeks) after it was released, and I can barely get past Noble, let alone exceed far enough for an me, an average player to defeat which supposely be a normal difficulty. That is the point the OP is trying to make; the main reason the average player is often put off by this game.

The fact that some people call Noble a newbie difficulty is purely ignorant, childish and immature to an average player, especially when there are clearly easier difficulties that fit such that title. Those whom fit that bill should reevaulate their Civ4 skill. Even though I have been playing this game as long as those above me, I fail to understand how they could go so far when I struggle to even make even to such a difficult game. Better yet, no one in this forum can properly teach, but to critisize those whom do struggle stregthen my clause of how ignorant, childish and immature the inhabitants of this forum can be. By that virture, I wholeheartly agree with everything the OP is saying.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The fact that some people call Noble a newbie difficulty is purely ignorant, childish and immature to an average player, especially when there are clearly easier difficulties that fit such that title. Those whom fit that bill should reevaulate their Civ4 skill. Even though I have been playing this game as long as those above me, I fail to understand how they could go so far when I struggle to even make even to such a difficult game. Better yet, no one in this forum can properly teach, but to critisize those whom do struggle stregthen my clause of how ignorant, childish and immature the inhabitants of this forum can be. By that virture, I wholeheartly agree with everything the OP is saying.

You're saying that the breadth of information here fails to teach and calling a rational basis for assigning a difficulty immature? Who's the one being immature? Everybody has a current and potential skill level, and it's going to vary. Your argument against civ is essentially that it's too hard for you, whom you assume to be an average player based on some unknown criteria (the forum polls are probably biased toward good players, but still well over half win noble + consistently, so using noble as the "average" difficulty does not appear off base...certainly that evidence holds up better than anything you've provided).

What you're posting here shows a ridiculous magnitude of fundamental attribution error. Your basis for claiming the forum can't teach is that you (and an apparent minority) have not learned (much, that is, you probably learned SOMETHING even if you've failed to apply it yet). However, thousands of people have learned from these forums. Many have jumped multiple difficulties above noble in weeks using that data (it kind of frustrates me in a sense that I've seen others advance as fast as I have, but it's good for the game ). Bias can distort the perception of who's at fault for a lack of improvement (attribution error is pretty well-documented, actually, and remains a problem in RL business too).

I do advise you to try to avoid it, however, because it blocks improvement in all aspects of life somewhat.

 

[PreLynMax]

You're saying that the breadth of information here fails to teach and calling a rational basis for assigning a difficulty immature? Who's the one being immature? Everybody has a current and potential skill level, and it's going to vary. Your argument against civ is essentially that it's too hard for you, whom you assume to be an average player based on some unknown criteria (the forum polls are probably biased toward good players, but still well over half win noble + consistently, so using noble as the "average" difficulty does not appear off base...certainly that evidence holds up better than anything you've provided).

What you're posting here shows a ridiculous magnitude of fundamental attribution error. Your basis for claiming the forum can't teach is that you (and an apparent minority) have not learned (much, that is, you probably learned SOMETHING even if you've failed to apply it yet). However, thousands of people have learned from these forums. Many have jumped multiple difficulties above noble in weeks using that data (it kind of frustrates me in a sense that I've seen others advance as fast as I have, but it's good for the game ). Bias can distort the perception of who's at fault for a lack of improvement (attribution error is pretty well-documented, actually, and remains a problem in RL business too).

I do advise you to try to avoid it, however, because it blocks improvement in all aspects of life somewhat.

I could've figured someone as arrogant as you, MIT, would respond to my mini-rant.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I could've figured someone as arrogant as you, MIT, would respond to my mini-rant.

Aren't you the one group-calling players on the forum "ignorant" and explaining how the majority of the people here are wrong? Is that not the epitome of arrogance? Even my forum name can't touch you right now.

I made a clear response as to why your and the OP's argument against civ IV difficulty scaling is flawed. I'd appreciate it if you not dedicate posts to calling experienced adults who are trying to improve somebody's civ outlook "childish, immature, and ignorant". Why do you think it is that "so many" people have advanced past a certain difficulty, while you have not? Do you really think it's their fault, or faulty game design?

If you don't like it, don't play it. I don't play hello kitty island adventure or console baseball games. People have different preferences. However, if you ACTUALLY want to get better at civ, you're turning far down the wrong path here. Seriously. Can't you do better than name-calling?

Moderator Action: Don't feed the trolls.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PreLynMax]

Aren't you the one group-calling players on the forum "ignorant" and explaining how the majority of the people here are wrong? Is that not the epitome of arrogance? Even my forum name can't touch you right now.

I made a clear response as to why your and the OP's argument against civ IV difficulty scaling is flawed. I'd appreciate it if you not dedicate posts to calling experienced adults who are trying to improve somebody's civ outlook "childish, immature, and ignorant". Why do you think it is that "so many" people have advanced past a certain difficulty, while you have not? Do you really think it's their fault, or faulty game design?

If you don't like it, don't play it. I don't play hello kitty island adventure or console baseball games. People have different preferences. However, if you ACTUALLY want to get better at civ, you're turning far down the wrong path here. Seriously. Can't you do better than name-calling?

Can we get an opinion from someone that's NOT an incompetent boor?

 

[Sisiutil]

PreLynMax:

I would tend to agree with your assertion that regarding Noble level as appropriate for new players is just dead wrong. I also disagree with the game's internal recommendation of that level for players experienced with previous versions of Civilization. I tried playing Noble in my first Civ IV game and promptly got overwhelmed, despite nearly a decade of experience with Civ II.

However, after I did a little self-education using the manual, the much-maligned in-game tutorial, and in particular, this forum, I was able to quickly move back up. I played one game at each of the lower difficulty levels until I found myself able to hold my own and remain competitive, if not consistently win, at Noble, where I spent many enjoyable hours fine-tuning my game skills. I don't consider myself to be an exceptional player--and if you've ever had a look at any of my ALC threads, you'll find several better players around here who have readily agreed with that statement! I regard my ability with strategy games as average--in fact, Civ IV is the only computer game I play, strategy or otherwise. (Well, aside from the occasional Brickbreaker session on my BlackBerry. And I really suck at Brickbreaker. ) I just have a little more time on my hands than other people might, probably because I don't have children.

As a result, I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with your assertion that the members of this forum are immature and incapable of teaching others. As I said, I learned how to play the game, by and large, thanks to the generous efforts of the many members of this board. And believe me, compared to some other Internet message boards I frequent, the members here are remarkably intelligent, polite, and generous. None of us are paid for what we do here, and yet we put in a great deal of time and effort sharing our enthusiasm for this game we love, and trying to help others enjoy it as much.

I have to say I felt a little personally affronted by what you wrote, since I have made a lot of effort to give back to the community through the various strategy articles I've written (including a well-regarded overall guide for beginners) and the ALC game series. Since I posted earlier in this thread, I had to assume you were including me as a target of your mini-rant. And I really don't think I--or anyone who's posted in this thread, and has tried to help out the OP and anyone else who posted similar feelings about the game--deserves that.

In short, I don't think Civ is a game series for everyone. Fortunately, there's no shortage of computer games around to choose from, so if someone finds the game is not for them, well, more power to them for recognizing that and for moving on to a more worthwhile subject for their valuable leisure time. I'm no wild-eyed Civ evangelist. But I do think that the average player can--granted, with a little effort--become skilled with the game and, over time, work his or her way up through the difficulty levels, including Noble and beyond. I have, and several other people around here have--and it's mostly been thanks to the generous assistance of the many members of this forum.