Something I don't like in the endgame. Do you feel the same??

[writser]

First of all, let me state that Civilization IV is one of the best games I've ever played. Some small bugs, but a perfect game in most aspects.

I have this small issue with Civilization IV, though. Actually, I've had it with all previous versions too. The thing is, in the early game I have TONS of fun. I have about five cities, control workers myself, specialize some cities into production powerhouses and specialize others in research. I fiddle with specialists to get that technology I desperately need one turn earlier. I make up technology research plans, calculating that in 9 turns my cultural influence spreads so I should have invented Iron Working at that time to build an iron mine right away. I wonder whether I should build a granary first and then a harbor, or the other way around. I think about the best spot to move my archer to prevent barbarians from pillaging my farms, etc. etc. You get the idea, I really like to micromanage my empire.

But after a while, say about 1800 A.D., I have tons of cities, all of them have built most important improvements. I've captured and built so many workers that I'm forced to put them on auto-improve. All cities are building tanks for massive warfare, and, well, I don't really feel it's MY civilization anymore. The fun of managing your entire empire has gone, the civilization has become too large.

I enjoy managing all small aspects of my empire, but that's not possible, or at least not as much fun if you have over twenty cities and over forty units. The game is still a lot of fun, but I enjoy the earlier years much more! Does anybody else feel the same? And does anyone have a solution for this? I'm curious. Until then, I'm starting another game, micromanaging my small civilization!

 

[holy king]

yea i felt exactly the same with previeus civs, but isnt that supposed to be reduced in civ4? (less cities, less units, more different unit types for different terrain/tactics)

 

[SpencerW]

Do you ever stop growth in your cities? I have really never found a use for cities with a population over 10+. Instead of setting your workers on auto, try just putting them to sleep in your cities, then you can activate them again after a war or something when you have to rebuild.

 

[lebowski]

Why don't you give a city or two to other civs? That would make for some interesting gameplay.

 

[Rellin]

I feel exactly the same way.

 

[Kerian]

I feel the best way to win as a smaller civilization is through a cultural or space victory.. You don't have to be a massive empire to do this, as long as you can keep ahead culturally/religiously/technologically of your opponents who will probably be spending their resources on expanding.

The catch to this is, you're very vulnerable and should any of these opponents attack you, you will have fewer cities to produce units and defend.. So if you're playing a small, cultural civ, build your cities in defensive positions to deter attackers

 

[Chieftess]

Why do people in real life like renaissance festivals?

I like the classical to renaissance the best, too.

 

[writser]

Kerian, trying to win with a cultural- or a space-victory is obviously the way to go. However, sooner or later some computer player attacks me, since all he does is building units with his 20+ cities. My great, influential, advanced, civilized and happy civilization is then crushed, since my five cities can't pump out as much units as his twenty medieval ****holes!

Besides, I also enjoy warfaring much more in the case of a small war, like five archers and three catapults against six barbarians and two axeman. I don't want to queue tanks in my cultural powerhouses! Unfortunately, this is almost impossible in the late game, since attacking an enemy city almost automatically forces you into a full-scale war.

 

[SPQR300]

I feel exactly the other way, after 1800AD I am usually tired of micro-managemant, and I am enjoying modern warfare, naval ships, tanks, ICBMs, airforce, and trying to decide which victory is the easiest to make. But yes gameplay changes much after a point.

 

[warpstorm]

Yopu could try playing on a smaller map so that you weren't managing 20 cities, but rather 10.

 

[SeaDog98520]

I for one, agree completely with you... I rarely bothered to finish a game in C3C as it got boring.. Due to the changes in battle with the defensive given such a boost, domination is not so easy unless you have such a tech advantage that you can be an avalache in battle.. and I don't think the AI will let you win diplomacy so that the space race is the usual way to win CivIV.

I love the many different games to play.. the scenarios and custom worlds offer an awesome variety.. but I do see the time coming soon when I will chose to start a new game before bothering to play an existing game to it's conclusion..

 

[writser]

I already do that, most games I play I stop before the actual end of the game. Playing a smaller map is an option indeed and I should try that a few times. Otherwise I should stick to some good scenario's, like the WWII scenario included with civilization II.

 

[werdna]

Same thing happens to me. I usually abandon my games once I reach modern warfare. I've played about 10 games so far (all epic) and finished only 1.

Things just seem to move so slowly later on.

 

[MSTK]

Yeah, I agree. I rarely ever play out a game to its end.

 

[Billy Rubin]

I also feel the same in every civ game, but here's what I do in civ 4:

- Play on a skill level you personally consider as a bit too hard. From my experiences in precious civ games, it makes you struggle longer. I usually abandon my games if I'm not in a really challenging - and therefore interesting - situation in the renaissance - having some super advanced arch-enemies around by that time really keeps things interesting.

- Play on crowded maps: most of my campaigns I just played were on large maps with high sea levels, but 15-18 civs - you get it - less land and more civs makes less cities per empire (at least for some time...).

- I usually chose civs with late UU's - early UU's are too tempting to use the advantage and thus, dominate early, which kills the challenge and therefore fun...

 

[Harbringer]

I think the late game with all the modern equipment is the funnest part of the game, but then again, thats what I thought was the funnest in all the civs.Except for civ I in which I dont think I ever once got to the modern age.

 

[minger]

I agree with you --- i also agree that the problem is MUCH reduced from civ3, but the lategame numbness still occurs. The most dramatic thing that happened late game fro me was was that I needed Haphestut's vote to win the diplo victory, so i changed my civic to the one she liked and then won. Woo.

 

[Phoenix_56721]

You can pick you're starting era in Civ4 which is nice, but it would be even better if you could also pick an ending era as well. You could do this in RON and it was fun, I never liked playing into the modern era when advanced bombers were everywhere and I was forced to build advanced fighters to protect my cities. So I would only play up to the about WW2 era and thats was great. Seems to me that adding an ending era in Civ4 would be a pretty easy mod, hopefully someone will make it....