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

[Lemon Merchant]

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

Absolutely! While I'm usually quite silly, I do take the forum, and the game seriously, and I have to say I'm with TMIT on this one.

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. <snip>

I'm sorry, but where do you get off saying something like this? I see plenty of people here willing to teach and help those of us who do struggle to improve. It's no secret that constructive criticism is a very useful way of getting a point across. Yes, there are some people who are jerks here. There are everywhere, and they usually get ignored, or flamed. There are many others who give of their time, their advice, and some wisdom gained from playing and testing themselves to people (like me) who have needed some guidance and help to improve their game.

As an example, you're calling TMIT an arrogant, incompetent boor. So, here's a man who spends a lot of his free time hosting team/learning games, making how-to videos for youtube, and generally improving the quality of advice dispensed on CFC. I read him regularly because I respect his commitment to the game, and to the forum, and his generosity. I play along with the learning games he hosts. I try some of the things he and others recommend. My game has drastically improved as a result of his input. How can you call him either incompetent, or a boor? He is neither IMO. In fact, your very comments in this thread suggest that it is you who is the boor. You are criticizing others for your own failure at this game. I have seen you in other threads rejecting the valid (and sometimes good) advice of others, yet you criticize others for not giving the very advice you reject. I don't understand your argument.

I don't pester TMIT for things, and I've never said to him that I actually appreciate his contribution because I don't want to embarass or irritate him, but I'm saying it now. He and others like him make CFC a better place, and it's the reason there is such a good community here.

As for the OP, if he doesn't like the game, or doesn't find it challenging, then he shouldn't play it, but he shouldn't criticize and belittle others for enjoying it. I would give the same advice to you. If that makes me a boor as well, then I'll happily stand beside TMIT and be "arrogant."

EDIT: And I also agree with what Sisiutil said.

 

[Sisiutil]

EDIT: And I also agree with what Sisiutil said.

And let me just say that IMHO you can never go wrong by doing that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And let me just say that IMHO you can never go wrong by doing that.

No kidding. I also appreciate the kind words, but Sisiutil writes so calmly/well that he could be a politician or possibly even an ALC host .

I don't know if you were aware Sis (until just recently in the bullpen thread), but for the longest time you were always exactly one difficultly level better than me in the ALCs, moving up right as I did . Your ALCs, among others, have been a very inspiring influence on my time here. 1 NE, btw.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Calm down, people. Address the points, not the people making them.

 

[Tyrael]

Skipped most of the thread, but if you don't like how much effort it takes to go up a difficulty level, why not just play whatever difficulty you're at right now? Nobody's forcing you to get "better" or play harder levels. I played Civ II for four years on Cheiftan and had great fun irrigating every single tile on my island and ramming phlanxes with tanks. The game should be what you want it to be- and don't think it has to be what everyone else says it should be.

 

[wickedcherub]

I think the OP's problem is that he just wanted to master the whole game. I don't know how many people have mastered Deity but I don't think it's very many. And I think that's the point of having so many different levels. Everyone can find a level they can play on, and every so often you find you can go up Or go down and try a new strategy so you can go up. It's truly the most replayable game I've ever encountered.

But what other people have said is right. Civ is really really complicated. And the manual just doesn't say half of what is required in the higher levels.

I play on Noble and my husband plays on Immortal and sometimes he stands behind me while I play and he gets upset when I waste a movement on my scout, or when I just promote my units without thinking etc. Tiny tiny tiny things matter in the higher levels that really don't matter on Noble! That just doesn't sound fun to me. But I guess some of it becomes second nature in time.

And that's just the thing. This is one of those beautiful games that take time. You can't just clock the whole thing in 9 hours like some games.

And those who say that Noble is for n00bs must never have been a n00b. Newbies don't know all the rules and don't know the leader personalities. I remember a time when I didn't know that having Monty on my border meant that I actually had to build an army. They don't know anything without having to look it up half the time and it's not always in the civilpedia.

 

[scyt4l3]

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

Dude you're such a troll that you make me trolling. Seriously, do you think before writing? You sir are an invitation for a flame war. Hopefully for everyone, I got a game to play.

 

[chris.]

I recommend starting at Renaissance or Industrial eras with an advanced start. That's where the game picks up anyway (unless if you're a chariot or axeman rusher). I don't prefer playing ancient on every game either.

Also, try not playing "huge" maps sizes for every map.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And that's just the thing. This is one of those beautiful games that take time. You can't just clock the whole thing in 9 hours like some games.

I respectfully disagree with this assessment .

Spoiler :

One of my favorite things about civ is that over time I realized that things I thought were impossible could be done (thanks to the forum), and eventually learned to do some of them (not all just yet, which is why I'm still @ immortal rather than deity). All 3 of those were immortal wins, one true UN, one culture, one diplomation (vassal people to win diplo), all < 2:30:00 .

I think the OP's problem is that he just wanted to master the whole game. I don't know how many people have mastered Deity but I don't think it's very many.

It's true, but I don't think they added deity with the expectation that everyone gets there. It's there for the players who REALLY want to test their game. At deity, some starts prevent the player from winning (or require a strategy that's difficult to discern initially), so it's an outlet for players who play perfectly or close to it to play the game and still face challenge/doubt on the outcome. It's not like someone points and laughs if others can't hit deity.

And those who say that Noble is for n00bs must never have been a n00b. Newbies don't know all the rules and don't know the leader personalities. I remember a time when I didn't know that having Monty on my border meant that I actually had to build an army. They don't know anything without having to look it up half the time and it's not always in the civilpedia.

I don't like the "n00b" terminology since its implications are not exactly clear. It's derived from "newbie", but seems to be used in mostly derogatory contexts. I was definitely still a rookie when I was playing noble (had been playing less than 2 months before winning 1st monarch game ---> took me a long time to start improving after monarch, though my previous civ experience was minimal). But, keep in mind that 2 months =/= same # of games when one person plays 4x as many due to time taken/game. If games took me 10 hours it would probably have been more like 6 months to win monarch + consistently.

People also have different goals when playing. If improvement is part of the fun then people improve to the higher levels much faster (as a kid, it wasn't true for me, so civ II I never got past chieftain!!!). If the game is just being played as a history sim or for fun, then there's not really a pressing need to move up. That doesn't make someone a rookie or newbie forever per se', but they'll be at a level that those attempting higher levels remember from their rookie days. Again, I emphasize that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If you look at forum difficulty level poll results, noble is on the low end of what the average player plays civ IV. In other words, it's not truly a beginner difficulty, but rather an around-average (on low end) one.

 

[arikajohnson]

No one starts off winning at noble. Which is why we have settler, chieftain, and warlord.

Yea and it is a lot more fun.

 

[smackthewise]

EDIT: Damn i MUST have taken WAY to long to reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many posts since I started to write (post 80)

PreLynMax:

The people on these forums are the most mature, helpful and well mannered people than ANY other forum I have EVER read. I have seen people use the term "I got raped playing noble difficulty", which is acceptable on most forums get replies stating that it is not acceptable here to use that sort of language, the OP apologised as he didn't even realise.

I have learned an INCREDIBLE amount from all the regular posters here such as TMIT, and while some posters may appear as being rude or elitist when discussing basics, such as obsolete (sorry to single you out) he is not being rude or offensive, and if you read here for a while you'll see its just how he writes - his personality - if you will.

I can easily win on any Prince game now, regardless of settings and such, purely from what i've learned reading through these forums (ALC, MAD's RPC's, all the bullpens etc etc) and the War Academy.

No where else I have I seen such a helpful bunch of people (Community!!!) than here at Civ Fanatics.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Many people won't ever go passed noble as that's what they enjoy.

[snip]


In the end playing a game is about having fun, most here like the macro/micro decisions involved in this game. If you don't, then this game probably isn't for you.
The Civ 4 learning curve is too steep though IMO.

I for one, will never again play on a higher level than Noble, unless I find myself pining for my next appointment with my dentist. And yes, I do think the learning curve is too steep. More specifically, I like it that you don't get any extras on Noble, but the downside is that the AI civs on that level are much more clever than most gamers because the accumulated insights of a horde of seasoned Civ expert players have been programmed into them. So the playing field isn't really level. I think that either the AI should be dumbed down a bit on Noble, or else the human player should get some freebies - popping settlers and workers from goody huts (but not the AI civs doing so), perhaps popping techs from huts a bit more often than the AI. Getting a bit more cash from the goody huts.

By the way, I find that criticism including negative opinions of a game is often good for everyone, leading to stimulating discussions. That is emphatically my opinion of this thread. Kudos to the OP.

 

[binary010101]

I for one think that there should be an AI that is capable of learning. Starting from a default template, the AI could adapt to (your) human strategies as it plays. The difficulty level could be changed by modifying the rate at which the AI learns. I think that this system is much better than the "prop you up with ridiculous bonuses on higher difficulty levels" that is currently inherent in the system.

Admittedly, I didn't read the last page too carefully, so sorry if this has already been mentioned.

 

[reverend oats]

AI civs on that level are much more clever than most gamers because the accumulated insights of a horde of seasoned Civ expert players have been programmed into the

If only if only....
The Civ 4 computers, while better than their earlier counterparts, in no way have the insights of expert players, partially because it takes a couple months after the game is released before the basic strategies are invented, and Firaxis doesn't usually improve the AI in patches. Still, the Bts AI is a step in the right direction.

 

[Crusher1]

No one starts off winning at noble. Which is why we have settler, chieftain, and warlord.

I've always been a very skilled gamer - in real life and computers so I respectfully disagree here .

I started off on Monarch (w/ no prior Civ experience), which imo is a very simple level - although, initially, the level made me devote around 40-50 hours of reading before I made my 2nd attempt ^^. But in all seriousness, at Monarch and below (perhaps even Emperor) you can almost always use a similar build order, tactic, and tech path and demolish the AI with very little effort. I'm always surprised when I see people having difficulties at some levels - not trying to be arrogant at all, just genuinely surprised. Seriously, it's as simple as:

1. REX or Conquer your way into a decent bit of land.
2. Run scientist and build research to power tech while working cottages or building wealth to pay for maintenance to reach key economic techs, or run deficit research via conquest, whip/chop/overflow/Wonder failure exploits, and selling techs for cash I.E, fix your economy.
3. Address happiness - accomplished by resources from your initial REX or early conquest, followed by monarchy or drama, and trade.
4. Emphasize infrastructure then vertical growth and actually begin transitioning to what kind of Long Term Economy you will be running.
5. Reach a superior tech and demolish the world or conquer enough land to win by any victory condition.

 

[UWHabs]

I've always been a very skilled gamer - in real life and computers so I respectfully disagree here .

I started off on Monarch (w/ no prior Civ experience), which imo is a very simple level - although, initially, the level made me devote around 40-50 hours of reading before I made my 2nd attempt ^^. But in all seriousness, at Monarch and below (perhaps even Emperor) you can almost always use a similar build order, tactic, and tech path and demolish the AI with very little effort. I'm always surprised when I see people having difficulties at some levels - not trying to be arrogant at all, just genuinely surprised. Seriously, it's as simple as:

1. REX or Conquer your way into a decent bit of land.
2. Run scientist and build research to power tech while working cottages or building wealth to pay for maintenance to reach key economic techs, or run deficit research via conquest, whip/chop/overflow/Wonder failure exploits, and selling techs for cash I.E, fix your economy.
3. Address happiness - accomplished by resources from your initial REX or early conquest, followed by monarchy or drama, and trade.
4. Emphasize infrastructure then vertical growth and actually begin transitioning to what kind of Long Term Economy you will be running.
5. Reach a superior tech and demolish the world or conquer enough land to win by any victory condition.

It's not so simple. I've been playing since Civ 1, and pretty much started at Prince, winning most games there. There's been a few adjustments to make, but yes, it has been the same basic pattern to win.

However, seeing a real beginner going, I can definitely see how earlier levels can be challenging to someone who hasn't learned what civ is about. People who don't pay attention to happiness too much, don't know what the different buildings do. If you don't dig deep into the strategy guides and care about maximizing everything, noble/prince are fair levels. Neither one you feel like you or the AI are getting big bonuses, but they're still not jokes of levels where you pop settlers from huts and pull off the Liberalism->Future tech type of slingshot.

 

[MarkJohnson]

I'd like to first thank everyone here who has contributed to helping out us noobs. I agree with the original poster on the complexity of the game and lack of rules, but with a game this complex you'd need an encyclopedia to cover everything. The forums are where it's at for learning and I find it much easier to ask questions and get a plain English explanation rather than a complex set of rule pointing me to several different pages for references.

as for the next levels being too hard and needing different strategies is what I like most about this game. Most games I can just fly through them in a month or two and feel like I've wasted my money. This game is new every time you play it, a new level is almost like a different game and keeps me interested in playing it over and over. It's taken a year and I've almost mastered the prince level and look forward to conquering all the levels.

When I go to the next level and it becomes too hard, I read up on that level in the forums and then practice for a while. When I get tired of losing I find I can lower my level and the new tactics are still valid and give you more time successfully practicing the new skills and then when you go back up a level you will be more successful. I also find I need to be able to win almost every time before I go to the next level or I lose miserably. at least 4 out of 5 wins.

Again, thanks everyone for taking the time to help out.
-=Mark=-

 

[Shurdus]

All I see in the first post - and I am sure tbis has been adressed many times in the pages that follow since I have not read it through - is whining about score and about things you can edit.

Score is not important. It is not on noble, not on deity.

If you want to goof around, the start a custom game and play with one opponent on huge so you are forever alone. It can be done. You can tweak whatever you like in the game, and if it still is not ok with you then you can mod pretty much just about everything. Whatever you may want from Civ, it can be done. It cannot cook you breakfast, pretty much everything else can be done.

 

[charon2112]

I would suggest to the OP that if he dislikes this game so much, simply don't play it. There's no need for long threads about how difficult you think it is.

I happen to despise C & C and other RTS games, but you won't find me logging into their forums to post threads about it. I love CivIV because of the complexity, not in spite of it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would suggest to the OP that if he dislikes this game so much, simply don't play it. There's no need for long threads about how difficult you think it is.

I happen to despise C & C and other RTS games, but you won't find me logging into their forums to post threads about it. I love CivIV because of the complexity, not in spite of it.

I do agree with the "don't like it? Don't play it" mantra, but IMO we shouldn't hate on other games either . RTS in particular takes incredible skill and game knowledge to compete against the better humans, but that's true with most games that are balanced well.