Tips for People Who Hate Civ 4

[dh_epic]

Not that I really care... because a lot of people have found this little article helpful. But yeah, I think there is just a fundamentally different kind of player who enjoys Civ 3 instead of Civ 4. Maybe not that the Civ 3 player is stupider, but the Civ 3 player likes being able to trick the AI, expand without worry, and find all kinds of little tricks for micromanagement. Civ 4 isn't a masterpiece, but it takes away the emphasis on surefire tricks, and puts just a bit more emphasis on making choices that may be good or bad depending on the situation.

Plenty of people "get" Civ 4 and still hate it. But the people who suck at Civ 4 and hate it are probably just closed-minded, if I had to take a guess.

 

[Dairuka]

Eek! Zombie Thread! It's alive! Run!

My opinion hasn't changed. So to anybody who even dares to argue over which Civ game is better, I have two things to say to you.

It's a game. So, if you don't like it for whatever reason you can muster; then shut up and go play something else.

It's a game. So, if you love it enough to defend it from every criticism; then shut up and go back to playing it.

 

[fishjie]

damn i should have read this article first

i got civ4 a few days ago. played on noble difficulty got destroyed precisely because i pumped out tons of cities, kept research low, and got wtfpwned

i kept playing the same map over and over and still losing, but now im getting the hang of it ha!

 

[alin1975]

I was just surfing along and came accross this thread. Since it was ressurected not long ago I thought I might voice my opinion.

First of all I find it insulting that people imply that those who dont like it suck at the game. What about if we just dont like the game itself? Everything about it put me off. Tiny little maps with a pompous 3d engine that does everything except give you a strategic overview. Changes in all the fundamental game mechanics... about the only thing left is the name. They were even nice enough (as a nod to old players that have bought their games for years and years) to switch the left and right mouse button functions around. So, when by reflex I right click for information, now I get to send a unit there... love you Sid.

The highlight was punching up their large "world" map. Took two steps and bumped into 2 civs. Europe could fit like 4 cities. It wasnt even the whole world. Civ 1 had larger maps than this.

And just for the record I am a veteran player, I played Civ since the first one. I competed in the Danish Civilization 1 championship (and did quite well) back in the early 90s. I can honestly say I have never been so dissapointed with a sequel in my life. Makes Heroes 4 look playable.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Looks like more then 4 cities in Europe. And the map certainly covers the whole world. Europe still needs to be enlarged, though.

Changes in all the fundamental game mechanics... about the only thing left is the name.

And if they didn't do it, there'll be complaints of the game not being different enough.

I don't really mind 3d, but I agree that it's unnecessary.

 

[alin1975]

"The map certainly covers the whole world"

Unless your screenshot is incomplete, North America is not there right? Neither is most of South America.

Either way the map that came with Civ 4 was not the whole world.

As for Europe, I am sure I exaggerated the 4 city thing. My apologies for that, but it did feel that way As the Romans I was instantly blocked on both sides and had room for 2 cities before war. Passage out of Europe was instantly blocked by two civs within the early stages of the game.

Try compare this to a huge map on Civ 3. Every single civ sequel made the game larger and larger. With this one they shrunk it something out of the early 90s.

"if they didn't do it, there'll be complaints of the game not being different enough"

Maybe. But I still think a sequel has to be connected much more to its predecessor. The previous civ sequels and Alpha Centauri are good examples. Many concepts came and went e.g. zones of control, role of espionage, one unit stack defense etc etc. Alpha changed things quite a bit, but was still much more in the civ series than Civ 4.

In any case, in the end one likes it or one doesn't. Its great if you do, and not so good if you don't lol. Clearly they have no issue with popularity so thats good for them. On a side note I am surprised since every single old (33 year old and up) hardcore player that I know hated it. But obviously its nothing compared to what they gained.

I just wanted to show that there is an alternative view to the Civ 4 euphoria which is not neccessarily derived from an inability to play the game properly.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Unless your screenshot is incomplete, North America is not there right? Neither is most of South America.

It's incomplete. You can actually see a piece of SA on the left and a size 6 town on the west coast of NA if you squint enough. And yeah, that's Earth18, the map that came with the game.

Try compare this to a huge map on Civ 3. Every single civ sequel made the game larger and larger. With this one they shrunk it something out of the early 90s.

Comparing an Earth map in Civ with a random map is not entirely fair, because every Earth map usually features a very high concentration of civs in Europe and a much lesser concentration in Asia.

Having said that, larger world sizes are certainly possible:

Spoiler :

I do think that Civ4 is badly coded. It clearly suffers from a memory leak of some kind. I dislike its large resource intensivity, which makes huge maps unplayable on some computers. Civ4 runs OK for me, but unlike in civ3, I can't alt-tab without severe repercussions.

I just wanted to show that there is an alternative view to the Civ 4 euphoria which is not neccessarily derived from an inability to play the game properly.

I agree. Some of the criticism, however, is not fair (well, some criticism of everything is not fair).

Maybe. But I still think a sequel has to be connected much more to its predecessor.

I don't really see how the gameplay differences between civ3 and civ4 are larger then between civ2 and civ3.

 

[alin1975]

Well, I am ok with us not being 100% on the same page.

Its great that you can get proper sized maps. I guess I never played it long enough to find out.

In regards to Civ 2- Civ 3, I guess its a matter of perception. I felt a familiarity with the game despite the changes. It felt like a Civ base with some modifications and a bunch of additions. Civ 4 felt alien and kind of unrecognisable. It felt like I was on equal footing with a new player which, to me, should never be the case with a sequel. I suppose this is all debatable, so let me just leave it at- to me it does not register as Civ anymore.

In any case, if some of my criticism was unfair then I retract it Sometimes I have a strong emotional response to this game because the series meant so much to me for so many years.

Oh, and thanks for your response, it was great to get your view on things.

 

[T-hawk]

They were even nice enough (as a nod to old players that have bought their games for years and years) to switch the left and right mouse button functions around.

This is configurable. Open the options screen and tick "Right Click Menu".

 

[TheDifficult3rd]

Sorry for the Uber bump, but this is the thread that NEVER DIES!

Anyway, seriously, I remember this thread from the time Civ 4 was released as being a major influence on me (and I assume other people) at the time of Civ 4.

Yeah, Civ 4 was different but that's something to embrace, just learn the new game and enjoy it.

I can't help but see the parallel to the release of Civ V.

 

[cabert]

Sorry for the Uber bump, but this is the thread that NEVER DIES!

Anyway, seriously, I remember this thread from the time Civ 4 was released as being a major influence on me (and I assume other people) at the time of Civ 4.

Yeah, Civ 4 was different but that's something to embrace, just learn the new game and enjoy it.

I can't help but see the parallel to the release of Civ V.

except civ V sucks

 

[thele]

I recently repurchased Civ IV via Steam, since I hate dealing with CDs. I started playing Civ IV for the first time in over two years, and I was getting creamed... then I found this thread.

Thank you very much for all the good tips. My biggest problem was "fast expansion". By taking this thread's advice, and focusing just on a few cities, I managed to stay in the game and finished in third place rather than last place (or getting wiped out).

I even had a positive income for a change!

Thanks to everyone, especially dh_epic for his original post!

-The Le

 

[beestar]

It's interesting how the strategy accepted wisdom evolves over time. This thread started off telling Civ3 players to get rid of their bad habit of over-expanding. One of the follow-ups claims success by not building the second city until 0AD(!).

But, years later, we know that land is still power, and having 6 or 8 cities at 0AD is a useful rule of thumb (broadly speaking, not all of the time).

I wonder how Civ 5 strategy will continue to evolve and improve as various approaches are tried and then discarded. A couple of big winning strategies have been found so far (and nerfed ) but I think we haven't yet exhausted the options.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

The key thing is not any land, but good land within your BFCs. It has to serve a few criteria: Is it fertile? Does it have useful resources like food, health, luxuries or strategics? And if not, does it rope off more good land for me to use later?

 

[fbcpraise]

I just want to thank Mr. Epic for writing a clear article. Some of these strategy articles require that you live in the author's head to know what he's saying.