Things Civ IV is really lacking in

[ProbStat]

1. Picking defending units. I've had a stack in a city, with one well-promoted unit and several middling units, and had the well-promoted defend first and win but get beat up. Then, as more bad guys attack, and I'm thinking, "Good thing he'll be out of the rotation and the other units will give him a chance to heal ... NOOO!" -- he gets attacked and destroyed anyway. The documentation claims that they have an algorithm that picks as the defender when a stack is attacked the unit with the best odds of winning. Frankly, I think Firaxis screwed that algorithm up. They don't seem to understand their own combat system very well, as in the manual where they talk about a unit with twice the combat strength of its foe having two-to-one odds of winning ... NOT! The in-game stuff seems to be a little better, but I think the defender picking routine is broke. Given how severely a damaged unit is penalized in combat (something I also question Firaxis' understanding of), it would be awfully nice if this routine worked, or, in the absence of that, if you could at least designate a defender on the occasions where there's an opportunity to do so.

2.a. Putting a new population point to work. For me, it's usually a fairly easy routine: Food and Production are largely interchangeable, so whatever you're building, you decide if you're going to build or grow first (often this is even beyond your control), you arrange your population to make that happen as quickly as possible, and when that's done you repeat the calculation, usually reversing the result and adjusting your workforce accordingly. The only consistent thing I've noticed is that new population is always put where I don't want it. Which leads me to ...

2.b. There does not seem to be a way to have the game alert you when a city has grown in population so that you can undo the preposterously bad allocation choice the computer has made for the new citizen. I really don't want to have to keep track of exactly when every city is due to grow, nor to look at each one each turn to see if it hasn't grown.

 

[drkodos]

2.b. There does not seem to be a way to have the game alert you when a city has grown in population so that you can undo the preposterously bad allocation choice the computer has made for the new citizen. I really don't want to have to keep track of exactly when every city is due to grow, nor to look at each one each turn to see if it hasn't grown.

Check out the HOF mod. It addresses this issue very nicely.

It's easy to install and use, and actually does what it claims to do.

 

[Chance]

In My Opinion I think Civilization 4 is lacking in Long Range Missiles. I think that ICBM’s and the bombs from bombers and stealth bombers aren’t enough (not trying to criticize Civ 4). But I think there should be some cruise missiles (non- radioactive) and other long range missiles (I am not aware right now if Civ 4 Warlords has these missiles). And, the missiles could also do significant damage to units.

 

[willpax]

I think Civ IV needs to come with a robot servant who will do all the housework I neglect while playing Civ.

 

[voek]

In My Opinion I think Civilization 4 is lacking in Long Range Missiles. I think that ICBM’s and the bombs from bombers and stealth bombers aren’t enough (not trying to criticize Civ 4). But I think there should be some cruise missiles (non- radioactive) and other long range missiles (I am not aware right now if Civ 4 Warlords has these missiles). And, the missiles could also do significant damage to units.

Bring back missiles!

 

[cabert]

I think Civ IV needs to come with a robot servant who will do all the housework I neglect while playing Civ.

if the robot could also take care of kids, it would be a great Xpansion

 

[Mama Lazarou]

I never really used cruise missiles in any of the games, they were always too expensive. I always missed gunships but now I have them

Point 1 is a problem I'm finding sometimes too, my best unit just gets pummelled on the second attack instead or retiring to repair...

Can this be fixed though?

 

[nurla]

Wish Civ4 comes with mine (ground bombs - burst if enemy units stand on them), workers/enginers can improve land, on the directions which civ can't defence as usually. Imagine - workers build trap, enginers build mine/anti-tank mine.
Idea come when my aggresive empire had tones of forces on one side of continent, and lack with forces on another. Some squares on the map inside cultural boder never(or only once) been step on through the game, but tie some forces and need constant attention as vulnerable, especialy for stacks. Micromanagment? Yes, probably. But if you look in real world, some countries with big territories, like Russia, base their land defence on the mine. More important fact - some battles was minebased or mines was big part of defence strategies , like Kursk battle(WWII), or Russia-Finland conflict 1939.

And may be some of us remember - in Civ3 worker was important unit in offense, sometimes 25% of units involved in war was workers. If they have had ability minesweep, they will come back their importance in the war.

Sorry, my English bad, hope you catch the point.

 

[automator]

I guess I have a naive trust in the program's defense algorithm, in that it for each attacker, it chooses the defender with the best possibility of defeating the attack.

I suppose what could make it better would be to give it the ability to anticipate the rest of the battle. For example, say you have a stack consisting of a Rifleman, two Calvary, an Elephant and a Cannon attacking you defence of a Rifleman with city garrison II, a pikeman and a grenadier.

1. Now, the AI attacks first with the Cannon. Your rifleman defeats the cannon and all units receive some damage.
2. Then the AI's rifle attacks, and your rifleman is chosen due to the city garrison II upgrade making it a better defender than the grenadier with its inherant bonus against rifles. Your rifle survives, but is battered.
3. The Calvary charges, and because you've given the granadier a combat I promotion, it defends, but dies.
4. Second Calvary charges and defeats your pikeman.
5. Elephant charges and finishes off your battered rifle and takes city.


The problem with how the computer decides a defender is that it looks at individual unit survival, and not stack survival. If I could pick and choose the defenders:

1. Cannon attacks, rifle defends, survives.
2. Rifle attacks, grenadier defends, dies, but severly damages rifle.
3. Calvary charges, rifle defends, survives.
4. Second calvary charges, pike defends, dies.
5. Elephant attaks, rifle defends, survives.
In this case, instead of losing your city, you've kept you city and all that's left of the AI's stack is a wounded rifleman who'll probably run away and hide.

I suppose writing the code for a defense that takes into account what's in the stack, what visible enemy units are heading toward your city, what enemy units are in the nearby territory, what units of yours are nearing the city for reinforcements, and what units will be soon finished would be a hefty chunk of effort, and the processor power needed would make each turn take forever. But, it would make for excellent defense without having to individually choose a defender for each and every battle, which would be a pain in the ass.

 

[Bierp]

Wish Civ4 comes with mine (ground bombs - burst if enemy units stand on them), workers/enginers can improve land, on the directions which civ can't defence as usually. Imagine - workers build trap, enginers build mine/anti-tank mine.
Idea come when my aggresive empire had tones of forces on one side of continent, and lack with forces on another. Some squares on the map inside cultural boder never(or only once) been step on through the game, but tie some forces and need constant attention as vulnerable, especialy for stacks. Micromanagment? Yes, probably. But if you look in real world, some countries with big territories, like Russia, base their land defence on the mine. More important fact - some battles was minebased or mines was big part of defence strategies , like Kursk battle(WWII), or Russia-Finland conflict 1939.

And may be some of us remember - in Civ3 worker was important unit in offense, sometimes 25% of units involved in war was workers. If they have had ability minesweep, they will come back their importance in the war.

Sorry, my English bad, hope you catch the point.

This is an interesting idea, but I have to say that I'm not too big a fan of it. First it's spammable and therefore exploitable. Second, remember that each 'unit' in civ really represents a large chunk of military gear or personnel. (call it a company, battalion or a division...but it's a significant force.) Mines are generally anti-personnel devices. Yes, I know there are anti-tank mines, etc. but the point is they're 1-at-a-time devices. A soldier that steps on a mine kills himself and maybe a guy or two next to him, but he doesn't take out his whole battalion. Once a unit learns that they've stepped into a minefield, preventative measures are taken.

Mines are deadly but they are more of a deterrance than a large scale weapon for wiping high numbers of troops in one encounter.

But thats just my 2 gp.

B

 

[automator]

I sorta like the mine idea.

• Make workers build mines, and have them take 15+ turns to build
-- possibly even mines must be built in a city an "carried" and assembled at the mine site
• Mines "strike" a single unit (at random) in a stack -- no collateral damage
• Mines do same damage to your units as to enemy units
• Mined tiles cannot be worked by citizens
• A border entirely lined by mines closes trade between the nations in question
• A UN Resolution exists to ban mines
• Workers must "clean" mines after the resolution
• A "minesweeper" unit can be built, requiring the same tech(s) necessary for the mine

There must be an opportunity cost in creation for something that has no opportunity cost in use. (A military unit has an opportuntiy cost in use because if you attack with it, its power is reduced if it needs to defend.)

A mine doing collateral damage would be overpowered.

If you could line your borders at no cost or risk, they would be overpowered.

Same point for surrounding cities. If you had to choose between having strong protection for your city and potential starvation, you'd think twice.

A UN resolution and required clean up (possibly needing both worker time and cash resources) just seems right.

A counterunit is important to have for every unit.

If someone wants to write this into the new edition of the TotalReality mod, I'd download it.

 

[zyphyr]

There is only one instance in the real world of a minefield large enough to be worthy of showing on a Civ scale map. The one in the No-Man's Land between N and S Korea. And that one was built up over decades.

 

[ProbStat]

I like the idea of mines. Some consideration would have to be given to maintaining balance, but I imagine Firaxis has done that sort of thing before. In old wargames, with cardboard tiles (yes, kids, we used to play wargames that way), mines typically gave a minor attack on a unit crossing it, and stopped its movement, and I think friendly units (that should be limited with regard to mines: you would only place mines somewhere you wanted no one to cross, so you wouldn't share the minefield maps even with allies) could cross minefields, but only slowly ... Also, a minefield would take a square out of useful productivity, and planting one in another state's territory would make them hopping mad. Friendlies (those able to cross, slowly, the minefield) would be able to remove them, slowly, and non-friendlies would be able to remove them really, really slowly. And their effectiveness would degrade as they had damaged more and more units.

Another thing that (as far as I can tell) has been removed from Civ IV that had been in prior incarnations is the ability to move population, as by building a settler and then having him add himself to another city. (Am I correct that that is completely gone?) That would be nice particularly for plain vanilla coast cities (no fish, clams, crabs), which can get enough food for each square to support itself (and produce some commerce), but which grow fantastically slowly, if at all. I wonder why Firaxis yanked this ability; probably some of you guys were abusing it too much. I wouldn't mind seeing it made really expensive, but I wish it were still available somehow. Particularly with the harsh maintenance limits on number and distance of cities, being able to have a reasonable city with no resources to speak of other than coastal squares would be very useful.

 

[nurla]

Thanks for your attention.
Main reason for minefield concept - civs should have smth to defend with in case of distant military units taking into account movement concept.

Maybe some changes in concept will be more fun for players - minefield builded by workers, but acts like unit - if enemy unit try to step on tile with minefield, they recieve small damage -5%, and back to the field from which it comes, while minefield recieve -5~-20% damage. After some attacks from enemies minefield is destructed. If tile with minefield defended with other unit (s), then attacking unit first recieve damage from minefield, and only then start to fight.

Minefields in city radius should decrease output of - don't know which exactly - food, gold or hammers. Techologies for example Nationalism can enable citizens work on tiles with minefield without penalties.

Perhaps "Charge" promotions can reduce damage on attacking unit or increase damage of minefield, while siege weapons doesnt recieve any damage from minefield(not sure), or make an increased damage for minefields.

Perhaps Capital city radius can't be improved with minefields.

Workboats can create seabased minefields, also not sure how it should works.

 

[The Great Apple]

2.a. Putting a new population point to work. For me, it's usually a fairly easy routine: Food and Production are largely interchangeable, so whatever you're building, you decide if you're going to build or grow first (often this is even beyond your control), you arrange your population to make that happen as quickly as possible, and when that's done you repeat the calculation, usually reversing the result and adjusting your workforce accordingly. The only consistent thing I've noticed is that new population is always put where I don't want it. Which leads me to ...

You can usually help fix this problem by setting empahsis on the city. If a city has empahsis on commerce then it'll place new workers on plots that give a lot of commerce, even though the governor isn't enabled. It isn't foolproof... best way would be to get some alerts mod which told you. It would seem HOF mod does this.

 

[efendi]

In some of the previous civ you could support your cities with production (with the caravans in CIV1) and if I'm not in a mistake also with food. That was great. In reality food is so easy to be traded between cities.
I think also that food resourses should provide some food not only for the city that they are in its FAT area. May be not exactly 1 resourse to be equal to 1 "slece of bread" but probably 2 or more.

 

[Xanxir]

Bring back missiles!

Not just missiles, but I also miss the paratroopers from Civ III as well. That's my $0.02.

 

[Lord Kid]

I didn't get a chance to play Civ 3 much but I really miss the Great Wall from Civ 2 in that it made it impossible for the other civs to attack you before they gave a peace offering, as well as the Pyramids providing a granary in each city.

 

[Fetch]

... and how is this a strategy article? But to answer #1, you have to remember promotions, and how they affect the odds of winning. A city defense 3 longbowman with 1/2 strength is still more effective than a non-promoted, fully healed one. This is the best defender for your city. I have never seen this algorithm go wrong.