dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
And by the industrial era, there's not nearly as much fun to be had.
Agree? Disagree?
Agree? Disagree?
the early game is the most fun.
- Thread starter dh_epic
- Start date
JonnyB
Workaholic
If you're managing a peaceful empire then I agree that empire building is better than empire developing. However IMO wars are more fun later in the game.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
The next expansion needs to add enough modern units, especially naval, to make the modern age worth getting to and waging war in. Yes, the early game is the most fun.
devilhunterred
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 511
I totally agree, modern games are downright boring
everyone just mass tanks mech infantries and bombers
submarines destroyers and battleships are almost useless other than defending against carriers
everyone just mass tanks mech infantries and bombers
submarines destroyers and battleships are almost useless other than defending against carriers
GIO888
King
Agree. Most fun between 1200AD and around 1500AD.
I have to admit my sentiment is colored somewhat by the limitations of my PC - it doesn't so much walk by 1800AD, more stagger, and slo-ow by 1850AD is an understatement! I try to win before 1850 as a consequence - not easy. Maybe another 1Gb of RAM!
Then again, I love Trebuchets......
I have to admit my sentiment is colored somewhat by the limitations of my PC - it doesn't so much walk by 1800AD, more stagger, and slo-ow by 1850AD is an understatement! I try to win before 1850 as a consequence - not easy. Maybe another 1Gb of RAM!
Then again, I love Trebuchets......
flytyer
Master Fisherman
Agreed...the outcome of the game is largely decided int he early stages. If the ground work is not laid for a solid foundation...your empire will crumble in the future ages.
Skirmisher
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2005
- Messages
- 249
The early stage is the most fun because.
a) it is very important how one improves the first two cities
b) the map has to be explored.
c) animals and barbarians have to be defeated
d) the race for the pyramids. If coastal, the great lighthouse.
e) a religion has to be founded
So there are a set number of initial challanges that has to be overcome.
In the middleages/rennaisance era there are only two or three challanges.
a) getting music first and the free artist
b) circumnavigating the world first.
c) clearing the continent of opposition, if any.
After that it kind of bogs down. Getting the industrial age leaders is not that important. It does not change the game. And the game kind of fizzles out, since by that point you know if you have won.
a) it is very important how one improves the first two cities
b) the map has to be explored.
c) animals and barbarians have to be defeated
d) the race for the pyramids. If coastal, the great lighthouse.
e) a religion has to be founded
So there are a set number of initial challanges that has to be overcome.
In the middleages/rennaisance era there are only two or three challanges.
a) getting music first and the free artist
b) circumnavigating the world first.
c) clearing the continent of opposition, if any.
After that it kind of bogs down. Getting the industrial age leaders is not that important. It does not change the game. And the game kind of fizzles out, since by that point you know if you have won.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
Yep, which is why the next expansion has to add enough that we actually want to play through to the modern age, and maybe even continue a game after we've won just to play in that age.
IMO the modern age has the most potential for varied units, buildings, technologies etc. and instead has the least amount. For instance, I'd like to see navy seals able to board nuclear submaries (which we don't have for some reason), many more naval units, ability for naval units to blockade cities and eliminate their trade routes, more air units like KC 135 tankers for refueling to increase range of air units in their area, and other stuff I have in mind.
The modern age has so much potential! As much as I love the early game, I'd like to enjoy the whole game and not want to rush to a victory all the time because the game gets boring as you progress in ages.
IMO the modern age has the most potential for varied units, buildings, technologies etc. and instead has the least amount. For instance, I'd like to see navy seals able to board nuclear submaries (which we don't have for some reason), many more naval units, ability for naval units to blockade cities and eliminate their trade routes, more air units like KC 135 tankers for refueling to increase range of air units in their area, and other stuff I have in mind.
The modern age has so much potential! As much as I love the early game, I'd like to enjoy the whole game and not want to rush to a victory all the time because the game gets boring as you progress in ages.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
This is interesting stuff, folks. Thanks for the perspective.
If I said I wanted to do one more poll for my big crazy survey thingy, would people feel inconvenienced and annoyed? This would be the third time I've said "last poll!"
If I said I wanted to do one more poll for my big crazy survey thingy, would people feel inconvenienced and annoyed? This would be the third time I've said "last poll!"
I play on marathon usually, and I'm generally the opposite. The early game is boring and predictable. Just playing through routines until I've beaten the AI's starting advantages. Its only when civs develop and wars include more than 20 units, does it start getting really fun for me.
I like to have the challenge later on, so I set the setting to be really difficult, so I'm struggling to survive a lot of the time. When you enter the rennisance and realise you're way behind, and have to do some crazy warmongering to cack up the other civs chances of winning, thats when i'm at my happiest.
I like to have the challenge later on, so I set the setting to be really difficult, so I'm struggling to survive a lot of the time. When you enter the rennisance and realise you're way behind, and have to do some crazy warmongering to cack up the other civs chances of winning, thats when i'm at my happiest.
Volstag
Chairman of the Bored
dh_epic said:
Agreed, though a lot depends on the current game situation.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree, and that is so sad. Why? Because the modern age has the potential to be the most intriguing. I think there are a few core reasons behind this boredom:
1) In the modern age, you are pretty much just down to a few key units, with few-if any-promotions that are useful anymore.
2) Pretty much everyone is running nearly identical civics, and religion no longer has a role in relations whatsoever.
3) As was stated above. If you are winning by the end of the renaissance, you will probably win the game outright.
4) The map is completely discovered.
5) Great people have much less impact on the game, and YES the Wonders are few and far between.
So, how do we solve these problems? I have made these suggestions before, so please forgive me repeating them (albiet in brief).
1) More is not necessarily better, so I wouldn't say 'give us more units'. Instead, I would say give us more modern-age specific promotions, especially for naval and air units (oh, and spies of course).
2) Revamp Espionage to make it more interesting, and allow for a multitude of non-combat conflict to be resolved in the game (Cultural and Economic Warfare for example).
3) Bring in Ideology alongside the existing Religion system-and along the same lines (i.e. found an ideology and try and spread it throughout the world).
4) Limit early unit movement so that more of the world is unexplored in the latter part of the game.
5) Take barbarian nations that extra step, and make them fully-fledged Minor States, with whom you can negotiate and/or wage war (especially useful with the Warlords Vassalage system!)
6) Implement a system to reflect the ups and downs of civilizations, so that mismanagement or dirty tricks can bring even a winning civ to its knees.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. Maybe a future expansion will see Civ4 be the version that finally does away with Modern Age Malaise for good.
Aussie_Lurker.
1) In the modern age, you are pretty much just down to a few key units, with few-if any-promotions that are useful anymore.
2) Pretty much everyone is running nearly identical civics, and religion no longer has a role in relations whatsoever.
3) As was stated above. If you are winning by the end of the renaissance, you will probably win the game outright.
4) The map is completely discovered.
5) Great people have much less impact on the game, and YES the Wonders are few and far between.
So, how do we solve these problems? I have made these suggestions before, so please forgive me repeating them (albiet in brief).
1) More is not necessarily better, so I wouldn't say 'give us more units'. Instead, I would say give us more modern-age specific promotions, especially for naval and air units (oh, and spies of course).
2) Revamp Espionage to make it more interesting, and allow for a multitude of non-combat conflict to be resolved in the game (Cultural and Economic Warfare for example).
3) Bring in Ideology alongside the existing Religion system-and along the same lines (i.e. found an ideology and try and spread it throughout the world).
4) Limit early unit movement so that more of the world is unexplored in the latter part of the game.
5) Take barbarian nations that extra step, and make them fully-fledged Minor States, with whom you can negotiate and/or wage war (especially useful with the Warlords Vassalage system!)
6) Implement a system to reflect the ups and downs of civilizations, so that mismanagement or dirty tricks can bring even a winning civ to its knees.
Anyway, those are just a few thoughts. Maybe a future expansion will see Civ4 be the version that finally does away with Modern Age Malaise for good.
Aussie_Lurker.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
You're right about more not necessarily being better, but CivIII had more modern units than IV, and I still don't think that was enough 
CivIV doesn't even have a nuclear submarine!?
CivIV doesn't even have a nuclear submarine!?
weasel77066
Prince
Most definitely. My favorite era is the start to later medieval era... it seems once the game gets to the modern era it has run out of steam, and generally is anti-climactic. Absolutely no idea how to address this. It seems to be a civ-curse.. and the general rule for games of this nature.
Charles 22
King
It should depend a lot on what sort of game you're playing. I play marathon exclusively and the first 200 turns are by far the worst, as scouting and dodging animals can be only so much fun. I could only find the beginning of any interest if I were playing an extremely short game with all the civs crammed together on a map without FoW. The very first game I played was so boring, and understand epic and marathon wasn't even avilable then IIRC, I almost gave up on the game entirely. Fortunately the next day I decided that I wasn't going to be stupid enough to let $50 go to waste and had a considerably better time with it.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Weasal, we need not abandon ALL hope of making the later game almost as fulfilling as the early game. Some of the suggestions I made above would go a long way-as would adding some new victory conditions. I also agree with DH_Epic that what might also need to change is the WAY victories are achieved. At present, most victories are a 'You Do it or You Don't' scenario (Space Ship, Diplomacy, Culture). Instead, what if victories were Gradual-with each achievement adding to your overall score. Bigger the achievement, bigger the score. This way, in space-race for instance, a player could either try and win by putting ALL his eggs in one basket and launching the ship to AC OR he could try and amass a lot of smaller Space Race victories. Such an approach might also allow for a second place, third place scenario too-and accumulated victories in one area could also count towards your overall score for victory purposes. This way, I feel people won't be so keen to give up when they see that 1 civ has almost finished the Space Ship, but instead focus their attentions on obtaining as many points as possible in Diplomacy and Culture to overwhelm the victory achieved by the player reaching AC.
Hope that makes sense.
Aussie_Lurker.
Hope that makes sense.
Aussie_Lurker.
Holycannoli
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,406
Yes the biggest problem is how victory is achieved. And rarely has a game been decided and cemented for me in the modern era except for space race which in all honesty is not that fun a victory. Space race victories for me are more a "last resort" victory or a desperation victory if I see an opponent has a chance to complete the ship before I achieve my chosen victory type.
In the modern era all you're really doing is finishing up your chosen victory conditions. You've already established what kind of victory you want to achieve well before the modern era, and you already know if you're gonna succeed or not by the time you reach it (except for space race which I don't like) so the modern era is just a "clean up" era. Everything's already been done. Everything's explored, cities are already built, empires are already established, the wars that really mean something have already been fought. So the modern era is really just a "clean up" era where you finish what you started with little chance of failure aside from defeat via space race.
In most cases victory or defeat is decided before the modern era unfortunately.
I would LOVE to see victory conditions changed. I would love a fairly complicated system whereby an early victory, for instance an early conquest victory where you never even get to the modern era, isn't necessarily higher scoring than a modern era conquest victory that's gained after much warring and empire building through the eras and many years. Not a system where a long-game victory is guaranteed to be higher scoring than a short game won as fast as possible, but where a game won close to the year 2050 can be higher scoring depending on what you've accomplished. There'd have to be some pretty radical changes made to victory conditions though! "Space race" wouldn't end the game, it would add to score. "Cultural" victory wouldn't be a victory but a high-scoring achievement. Etc etc. And games would almost have to last till 2050.
I know score is based heavily on what year you win, but that also encourages "rushing" through the game, and it leaves the modern era largely out of the game...so much so that the devs don't pay enough attention to it. And that leaves us without much incentive to play the late game.
In the modern era all you're really doing is finishing up your chosen victory conditions. You've already established what kind of victory you want to achieve well before the modern era, and you already know if you're gonna succeed or not by the time you reach it (except for space race which I don't like) so the modern era is just a "clean up" era. Everything's already been done. Everything's explored, cities are already built, empires are already established, the wars that really mean something have already been fought. So the modern era is really just a "clean up" era where you finish what you started with little chance of failure aside from defeat via space race.
In most cases victory or defeat is decided before the modern era unfortunately.
I would LOVE to see victory conditions changed. I would love a fairly complicated system whereby an early victory, for instance an early conquest victory where you never even get to the modern era, isn't necessarily higher scoring than a modern era conquest victory that's gained after much warring and empire building through the eras and many years. Not a system where a long-game victory is guaranteed to be higher scoring than a short game won as fast as possible, but where a game won close to the year 2050 can be higher scoring depending on what you've accomplished. There'd have to be some pretty radical changes made to victory conditions though! "Space race" wouldn't end the game, it would add to score. "Cultural" victory wouldn't be a victory but a high-scoring achievement. Etc etc. And games would almost have to last till 2050.
I know score is based heavily on what year you win, but that also encourages "rushing" through the game, and it leaves the modern era largely out of the game...so much so that the devs don't pay enough attention to it. And that leaves us without much incentive to play the late game.
