Still unable to get into CivIV

[HuckFinn]

So.. I suppose this is an old-timer rant... bear with me

Civilization I was my first ever PC game. I had just migrated away from the Amiga 500 to an 486/50MHz, and the year was sometimes early 1990s. I still remember playing (and losing) my first ever Civilization game as the Egyptians... Comrade Stalin was just simply far too war-crazed a neihhbour. I played the game through the night, which was to become an all-too common phenomenon. Anyway, I got hooked to Civilization like pretty much every other strategy gamer of the past couple of decades.

Civilization II has probably cumulatively destroyed more of my time than any other game so far, and Civ3 actually made me waste about three days, excluding one math lecture and a few hours of sleep, in creating my best overall result of my Civilization career. So... I'm pretty much a veteran.

But... then came Civ4. It's visually pretty and all, but I am still ambivalent about the game itself despite having tried to play it quite a lot. Some of it is probably because of me not being able to adapt my play style, and I'm willing to admit that. That's probably why I'm posting; I really want to know what I am missing here

There are various things I'm not comfortable with in Civ4. It seems to me that Civ has fallen into the "Call to Power" trap of introducing too many pointless new things that don't materially contribute to gameplay. The units' promotion system and the introduction of (politically-correctly neutered) religions are the worst offenders; I still can't see why they are there. They just seem to add unneccessary complications to the game, and the religion bit is even more superfluous than the unit promotion bit.

The Civics system is questionable as well. I much more preferred having distinctive, consistent governments to choose from, that had reasonable effects on my civilization. A lot of the Civ4 civic options seem to be arbitrarily assigned to their categories, and it just seems to give me the feeling that I'm just supposed to race through all of them so that I can get to the top-level free-market democracy. In Civ3, your choice of government at least made practical sense, and there was a time when you wanted to be a warmongering Fascist.

Civ4 also has aggravated the problem Civilization has had from the start -- the early game just whooshes by. Nothing happens before 1000AD, and the new tech tree makes things worse. Tech trading has been intentionally nerfed, and the tech tree itself has become stranger... you get Alphabet really late in typical games. You Alphabet and Literature around the the time you're building the Sistine Chapel! This is historically totally, totally weird. The ability to write arose earlier than Civ4 makes it seem like, and you don't need writing to exchange Archery for Animal Husbandry. The Civ4 tech tree system also means that you start getting meaningful communications with other civs far later than in earlier Civ games.

This ties into general pacing issues in the game. Civ4 gives me the impression that the game advances way faster than it used to, and that I am strangely always behind the curve no matter what I do. I have trouble understanding where the human player's edge is supposed to be here. Now, I am all for good AI in games and I hope this is what I am seeing here, but I get the distinct impression the computer players are in cahoots ... or that I'm just missing something. I hope it's the latter.

So.. I'm all ears... what should a Civilization veteran do to improve one's game in Civ4, so that he would not always find that he has just been clicking "next turn" until 1000AD where he is hopelessly behind?

 

[JujuLautre]

Well, it's hard to tell just because you give your critics of CivIV and nothing about what you do (or don't do) in your games. But one thing that still strikes me is about "nothing happens until 1000 AD".

Actually, if you lurk on the various games which are posted and played in these forums, you will discover that, on the contrary, the beginning of the game is the most important period of all; it is in this time that you will shape your civilization/empire/culture and will decide a whole part of the course of the game. So basically, if you neglect this part of the game, I fully understand that you find yourself way behind after a few more centuries

Promotions, as well as Civics, are imho here to encourage you to specialize: specialize cities, specialize units, specialize your empire... And I must say I really find this is a good thing. I remember playing CivII and building cities after cities after cities and always the same buildings and roads everywhere, and retrospectively, it was quite boring

 

[HuckFinn]

Yeah, I understand as well that my problem is probably in an inability to adopt my gameplay to the early game. I used to be very much of a fine-tuner in the early game in Civ3 in particular; In Civ3 in particular my games were always won or lost by 0AD.

Then again, reading criticisms of Civ4 I do come across a lot of complaints about pacing, so I'm not alone here...

 

[Jedoc]

Based on my own experience and from what I've read in these forums, I think <b>JujuLautre</b> has it right. Specialization is the most important strategic change from former Civ games. If you're like me, the system won't really click together until you've focused on specializing your cities to an exaggerated degree. Give your cities a name that reflects whether they're meant to provide commerce or production, wonders or units. And then do your best to stick to the initial concept. If you get the urge to build a library in your military pump for a few extra beakers, resist it. Keep building axemen instead, so that when war comes you won't have to put off building a university in the cities that are actually providing a decent amount of science to your civilization in order to build units.

And as for the gameplay mechanics you find superfluous...now believe me when I say that I really, really don't want to sound like I'm patronizing someone who has been playing since Civ I, but how well do you really understand them? I mean, when I first installed BtS, I spent my first several games griping at the new espionage system, because it seemed nonsensical, random, and rather bolted-on. So I played a couple of games in which my sole object was to gather up a ridiculous number of espionage points and agents and screw with the AI in every underhanded, backstabbing way I could think of. I had fun, learned some important aspects of the espionage system, and I'm sure that by Christmas it'll be hard for me to imagine playing a game of Civ 4 with the old system.

So if you want to adapt to the new rules and clear out those Civ 3 clogged neural pathways, put yourself on a training regimen. Play a few games as Isabella or Gandhi with the goal of founding an early religion, converting everyone in the world to it, and crushing those who refuse. Molding your strategy around religion will force you to come to terms with the economic, military, and diplomatic aspects of religion in a way that casual tactical meandering never will.

Do the same with the promotions. After all, they're the only reason Civ 4 could condense the attack and defense values into a single number, which gave me the heebie-jeebies when I first saw it in the previews. Give your units promotions you've never used and then try to find situations in which oddly-promoted units excel...or, you know, die in massive droves in an entertaining manner. Still educational.

And if all else fails, maybe this particular iteration of Civ just isn't your cup of tea. I know I never got into Civ 3 to the same degree as Civ 2, for no reason I can really put my finger on.

Anyway. That's me. Hope you find something that makes the experience click.

 

[mythmonster2]

Well, dude, you're not exactly alone. I for one am sticking to Civ 3

 

[NovaDream]

I share some of your gripes as well. Particularly the one about the game developing too fast. I play on epic speed, because its a longer play while still containing the balance of a regular game, but even still, the game develops so much faster than in CivII. And I find that disappointing. I appreciate the deliberate pacing, and the investment the previous games required.

 

[dvemin]

Well what would be a point of new civ release if everything worked like in civ2 and civ3? if you like them more and don't want to ever master any new stuff then perhaps you are too old for new games.

Unit Promotions -- they are made in replacement to the simplistic "veteran" system in previous civs. They allow you to adapt your army for the opponent and conditions they will fight against.

Religion -- this is the way to make friends (or foes) with the AI, to add some more happy faces and to earn some money to support those uber expensive cities of Civ4. You can build a "shrine" in the holy city that will earn 1 beaker for each city with this religion in the world. Also there is apostolic palace in BtS, which adds more sense to the religions.

Civics -- don't see what you dislike here, they are in every way better than fixed choices... And they were around since the times of Civ2, I mean in Alpha Centauri... Although I agree that the things civic affect are too arbitrarily assigned to different categories...

And another important note required to get into civ4 - the ICS is nerfed, meaning that you can't spam cities now.. after some point another city would cost much more than what you can afford, independent of the distance to capital. so pay attention to city cost and plan ahead new cities so that they would be able to earn more than they consume...

 

[HuckFinn]

Thank you for suggestions, I actually managed to pull off my first ever win on Noble last night. A space race win that went down to the wire both in terms of competition and remaining time, but a win is a win is a win.

Well what would be a point of new civ release if everything worked like in civ2 and civ3? if you like them more and don't want to ever master any new stuff then perhaps you are too old for new games.

It's not neccessarily good to make changes only so that you can push out a new release. One of Civilization's greatest strengths has always been the economy of gameplay elements, so I am naturally sceptical when something new is introduced. Think of it as a kind of gameplay Ockham's razor...

And yeah, once you start becoming fossilized while approaching 30, you do kind of prefer mastering new skills in real life instead of games, I give you as much, O Chieftain of Two Posts -- so I might just as well ask what has so substantially changed instead of hacking away until I learn the hard way

Unit Promotions -- they are made in replacement to the simplistic "veteran" system in previous civs. They allow you to adapt your army for the opponent and conditions they will fight against.

At least it is unobstructive, so one essentially gets the feature almost for free. It does go down better with the smaller armies Civ4 seems to have, it would be a pest having to specialize too many units and keeping track of them.

Civics -- don't see what you dislike here, they are in every way better than fixed choices... And they were around since the times of Civ2, I mean in Alpha Centauri... Although I agree that the things civic affect are too arbitrarily assigned to different categories...

I liked the Alpha Centauri civics much more, they made more sense... it's the categorization problems I have that bug me. I mean.. human societal systems tend to form whole entities that are not easily broken down into independent factors like Civics attempts to, and it results in being able to create slightly oddball combos (free-speech police state?)... also.. is Environmentalism an economic system? Pacifism a religious organization of a society? Didn't bureaucracies arise with the nation-state?

 

[GenocideBringer]

free-speech police state?

Possible, if strange. It's possible for a state to completely and totally suppress its populace, allowing them little freedom and giving out lots of propaganda, while still allowing people to say what they wish. It just didn't happen often in history (and it doesn't happen much in Civ IV either. Free Speech is a culture civic, and Police State is a war civic).

Environmentalism an economic system?

I find this slightly odd too. I think the point of environmentalism is that it functions like any other economic system with a large focus on preserving the economy, which has pros and cons.

Pacifism a religious organization of a society?

It can be, yes. Pacifism refers to when a civ has a state religion and such, but is very peaceful with it. Think the modern Catholic Church compared to the Catholic Church that launched the crusades.

Didn't bureaucracies arise with the nation-state?

Don't think so.



I agree that some of the choices are kind of wonky, but it's mostly an improvement over previous Civs. The major thing I dislike about the civic system is how you simply change it based on the situation...Oh . .. .. .. ., we just entered a war? Woohoo, suddenly our model democratic, free society turns into a theocracy and returns to feudalism with vassalage to fight the war! I wish civics were more long-term choices based on style of play, not simply to be switched whenever the situation changed.

 

[HuckFinn]

Don't think so.

When I think of "bureaucracy" as a civic, it instantly reminds me of things like autocratic France, Prussia, or late-day Czarist Russia. The central government needed to set up a bureaucracy to efficiently and scientifically manage the empire in the spirit of the Enlightenment, which produced a lot of red tape in the process...

The major thing I dislike about the civic system is how you simply change it based on the situation...Oh . .. .. .. ., we just entered a war? Woohoo, suddenly our model democratic, free society turns into a theocracy and returns to feudalism with vassalage to fight the war!

Oh, but you just need Mass Media and enough Corporatism and Theology for that, and you manage it easily in a democracy as well. I just liberated an oil resource I needed that way from the evil Inca, and ended up actually managing my first really dominant Noble Civ4 win in the process

 

[Gooblah]

Yay! Go Huck!

The games i find enjoyable are those that I apply new tactics in; the enjoyment of seeing Victoria's face crumble as I declare on her as soon as we meetl.......Un paralleled joy!

 

[Smidlee]

I believe what makes civ4 seem to have a faster pace is you have less chores than in any other civ game. Spamming cities and build road/railroads everywhere got to be more of a chore with time for me. Also as in civ2 you had the chore in trying to keep AI off your land.

( This is why I could never enjoy MMORPG no matter how hard I tried. Everything felt like a chore. I remember with FF11 I look forward to reach level 20,30,etc. to get new weapons,magic, etc. yet when I got them the game play still was nothing but "keep you business" work.)

So for me I actually like the Civ4's less chore, less cities and less workers approach for faster pace. I love all civs when they came out but when I return to them now I see all those chores which have become very old to me.
I do agree with you that I find civ4 not as addictive as past civs but that's mostly because I find all games less interesting as I get older.

 

[NovaDream]

I think research times have been greatly sped up. This was the first thing I remember noticing about Civ IV when I first got into it. I can't remember how research times were in Civ III, but Civ IV is definitely quicker through the tech chart.

 

[Smidlee]

I think research times have been greatly sped up. This was the first thing I remember noticing about Civ IV when I first got into it. I can't remember how research times were in Civ III, but Civ IV is definitely quicker through the tech chart.

This is true yet civ4 has a few more techs than civ3. (over 10 more) Also in civ4 worker's ability to farm,mine,build roads must be researched so you don't want to tech to be as slow as civ3.

 

[NovaDream]

This is true yet civ4 has a few more techs than civ3. (over 10 more) Also in civ4 worker's ability to farm,mine,build roads must be researched so you don't want to tech to be as slow as civ3.

Later techs could/should come slower then, IMHO. I get a feeling of rushing through things in CIV IV, almost as if racing the other civilizations. Thats not to say I don't enjoy the game, but I preferred the late nights of methodical progress. Felt to me like my civilization "developing", as opposed to "racing".

 

[ukrneal]

I like civ IV a lot. I agree with the OP that what I liked about the previous games has been changed here. My goal in most civ games was to build as many cities as possible while having the smallest overlap possible (so putting a city 2-3 spaces away was a big no-no) on the biggest possible map. I can't apply all that here well - you'll get killed without some modifications.

I would also try to build as many useful buildings as possible and NOT specialize most cities. That too doesn't work well.

So the problem for me is that the reasons I liked and played civ have been taken away. TO counter that, I make some modifications in the game if I want to play that way.

But the game for what it is - well, it's still great. It's just not what I want it to be. I'm still hooked though....

 

[HuckFinn]

Actually my really good-looking win on Japanese didn't make use of overt specialization. Of course you need to play cities to their strengths and make use of what's there, that's natural... but I also tend to believe that "specialization is for insects", not for civilizations. I consider it fairly unnatural that my citizens would be happy living in a city that is badly skewed towards commerce, units or science... sounds like the Soviet style of specializing their regions, and we know how well that idea turned out

 

[Wodan]

I consider it fairly unnatural that my citizens would be happy living in a city that is badly skewed towards commerce, units or science... sounds like the Soviet style of specializing their regions, and we know how well that idea turned out

So... you're using some idealistic version of real life with how you think it best to optimize a game of Civ?

Wodan

 

[HuckFinn]

Why not? I do like to think of Civ as a civilization simulator...

 

[Wodan]

Why not? Well, it's like anything, I suppose.

We all have this... let's call it an "idea"... of how things work. We could be thinking of a real life problem at our job, or some physical process such as planting herbs in our back yard.

Now, my "idea" of how well Basil will grow in my backyard will be based upon my reading of Basil, of weather, of the soil where I live, etc.

So, I plant Basil.

How well does the Basil grow? That depends on the actual conditions. Maybe I live in Texas, U.S. Maybe it's very arid and flat here, but it's also occasionally humid and rainy. So, if we undergo a period of heavy rains, it might rot the roots and kill the Basil. That might be an atypical year, but then again, maybe I simply had a poor conception of the conditions in Texas.

How does my conception of the conditions correspond to the acutal conditions?

And, let's recognize that I'm talking about actual research vs actual conditions. It's not nearly so amorphous as actual, real-life political systems vs a friggin game.

Wodan