What are your Civilization IV unpopular opinions?

[lymond]

I would like to see AGG also get half-price Stable as well. Still wouldn't make AGG that great, but it would make an oddly expensive building accessible and fit the trait exactly.

I've always thought it odd that they didn't add Stable to the trait. When you think of some of the other traits providing bonuses to far more important buildings than barracks/stable, it's a tad baffling. However, I highly suspected what developers considered "valuable" at the time is far different from what players think now. Still, half-cost Stable would be very nice, especially for someone like me who prefers mounted warfare in this game.

It does not make AGG all that better of a trait, but it'd be a nice improvement.

edit: ha...I always forget that AGG has bonus on Drydock...a building I never build. So much better if that was the Stable instead.

 

[Orion Pax]

Totally. As is I almost never build stable because by the time I feel I can afford it, I’d rather have one more unit instead, and I probably have at least one settled Great General and so need it much less now.

Drydock, lol. Forgot that was even part of AGG.

 

[sampsa]

Based on what I see, my unpopular opinions seem to be:

• buildings suck (except granary)
• gold is a mediocre tile
• AGG is 2nd worst trait

 

[Nick723]

Modern era combat is the most fun and interesting era

 

[konata_LS]

@sampsa
Interesting point of view . Apart from the worst trait (PRO, I assume?), what makes you rate IMP higher than AGG?

 

[sampsa]

@sampsa
Interesting point of view . Apart from the worst trait (PRO, I assume?), what makes you rate IMP higher than AGG?

Yes, PRO is weakest by a big margin, which doesn't make it useless though. IMP is pretty decent, I might even prefer it compared to say ORG, because the speed of early expansion is extremely important.

 

[lymond]

I've grown to value IMP a bit more myself recently, especially paired up with a good trait. I've had very strong games as Vicky.

 

[sampsa]

PRO is weakest by a big margin

I think I need to specify that I do place some value to a victory date. If we take only winning% into account, I don't think PRO is that weak, because it avoids some early game surprises. If my life depended on a game of civ4, I might pick Sitting Bull as the leader.

 

[jnebbe]

Modern era combat is the most fun and interesting era

Second this. Maybe it's just the novelty of modern era since the game is either won or lost by then, or because it has the best music, but it's probably my favorite era

 

[konata_LS]

@sampsa
Ah, I see your reasons. Dogs and PRO archers are decent for early defense while PHI is good.
But, more precisely, f you play a game as SB, for example the latest NC with SB, how would you leverage his traits and advantages? Would you grab Mids and enjoy Rep specialists? Or would you build SH and use 100 turns to clean the jungle ?

@lymond
It seems some players on Deity (like you and @ sampsa) value IMP more than people playing on Monarch and below do.
IMP is often strong if it's combined with decent starting techs and/or a good second trait to support the fast expansion, like you said, Vicky (IMP + FIN). Suleiman (IMP + PHI, starts with Agri + TW), Cathy (IMP + CRE, half-priced libraries for a faster GScientist) and AC (IMP + IND, strong early UU) are good IMP leaders as well. But when IMP meets another crappy trait and weak starting techs, like Charlie, it just makes people feel terrible.

 

[sampsa]

But, more precisely, f you play a game as SB, for example the latest NC with SB, how would you leverage his traits and advantages? Would you grab Mids and enjoy Rep specialists? Or would you build SH and use 100 turns to clean the jungle ?

First, survive. Then, work with the land that I have.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think people are massively overreacting to what traits or UU/UB their leader has. The game works mostly the same no matter what leader. Only when it's close between two completely different strategies (say an axe rush vs. Mids and peaceful until lib) I let the traits/UU decide.

 

[lymond]

Totally agree with sampsa. Too much emphasis on traits. Yeah, good traits are good and you should know how to take advantage of them, but you still play with what you have. I don't quite get the idea of Mids being particular to the Philo trait. I build MIds when and if I can, if it is optimal, which it usually is with stone and/or IND. Enjoying Rep specialists is more a matter of food than traits.

The key with Philo traits is more GPs more fasterer (sic). Allows a faster academy, or maybe a Maths bulb for some strategic advantage and boosted chops, quick Philo bulb for Pacifism, and later Golden Age GPP shenigans for that big bulb push. There's a lot of flexibility there depending on the situation.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

It takes too long to finish a game of Civ4 or indeed the whole Civ series. Multiplayer cannot be popularised. The fanbase is not big enough to sustain proper support. The series will die. I don't mean turn it into a 5-minute mobile game. I'd say around 3 to 5 hours, the length of a complicated board game on a Friday night.

Speaking of proper support, I am not against monthly subscriptions for a multiplayer lobby. Endless DLCs are annoying but customer service needs financial support.

1UPT is a HORRIBLE solution but "stacks of doom" must be eliminated. Most gamers do not enjoy controlling more than a few dozen units every turn.

Based on what I see, my unpopular opinions seem to be:

• buildings suck (except granary)
• gold is a mediocre tile
• AGG is 2nd worst trait

Plains-hill gold/silver/gems (even snow fur) is strong in the beginning to clear worker techs. They do later-on become inferior to working tiles that produce more than zero food. But the "later-on" only happens when you are less happiness-constrained.

AGG being 2nd worst is not unpopular. I believe it's consensus. ORG on the other hand... (I think it varies greatly by difficulty)
-- -- --
How to strengthen PRO... how about... free walls in every city! I don't even think it's overpowered.

 

[Fippy]

1UPT is a HORRIBLE solution but "stacks of doom" must be eliminated. Most gamers do not enjoy controlling more than a few dozen units every turn.

Anti-SOD opinions or even rants which made them change their working system need to go away -.-
There's nothing difficult in IV about grouping units together & moving large stacks, any experienced player never moves them all single.
+ if you watch how AIs play, peoples can realize how using one big SOD isn't always good..being hit with lots of siege and then getting wiped out also counters the argument how difficult to beat they are.

Good point about early commerce like gold tiles
I don't think they are mediocre at all.

 

[sampsa]

Yes, high -tiles can be pretty good at the beginning, say first 70T or so. Higher -cap is very valuable, but I'm arguing that the tiles itself are mediocre, barring the timeframe they are improved until granary (~T25-T70). I'm not really trying to downplay the power of gold starts, but for me, saying that gold is the best tile in the game is nothing but ridiculous.

 

[Fippy]

Who would claim they are best thou?
I think all would agree that wet corn is the best tile overall.

However in some situations gold can be the outstanding tile, with an abundance of food already i'd rather have something that keeps my economy going (and gives happy) than another wet corn. Here gold allows all cities to make more use of their food tiles, and we can settle them all sooner.

 

[civac]

I have almost stopped playing SP (used to be a mediocre IMM player) in favor of Pitboss. It's interesting how that shifts these evaluations around.

Gold is very good for the happiness and reaching techs like Sailing, Writing, Pottery, Currency while expanding fast. Preferably though, I don't want it at my capital or indeed any of the first 3-4 cities. These are supposed to carry the expansion and either get whipped a lot (optimal play if happycap is sufficient) or work strong foodhammer tiles. It's early enough for a 5th or 6th city to pick up gold/silver. It's different for grassland gems or grassland forested furs.

It takes too long to finish a game of Civ4 or indeed the whole Civ series. Multiplayer cannot be popularised. The fanbase is not big enough to sustain proper support. The series will die. I don't mean turn it into a 5-minute mobile game. I'd say around 3 to 5 hours, the length of a complicated board game on a Friday night.

Speaking of proper support, I am not against monthly subscriptions for a multiplayer lobby. Endless DLCs are annoying but customer service needs financial support.

1UPT is a HORRIBLE solution but "stacks of doom" must be eliminated. Most gamers do not enjoy controlling more than a few dozen units every turn.

Civ4 lobby MP games played on Quick speed do last 3-5 hours, or even less if you use a fast timer. That is still too much for it to be a truly popular pastime. I doubt changing the time demand will be to the game's benefit. It's OK to allow Civ MP to be niche. Most players play SP anyway. You also have the option to play Pitboss or Pbem/Pbc which enables proper planning as opposed to fast MP gameplay.

As Lymond says managing SODs is trivial most turns. Moving an army takes two mouse clicks. When attacking there is more to do but that part is also fun. The main micromanagement demand lies in organizing and moving reinforcements which can be quite a chore and would benefit from fewer units. However, having higher unit costs as in CIv5/6 has its own problems. One of the reason Civ4 is a strategically superior game to the newer titles is the availability of enough units for multiple armies/battle theaters.

@sampsa
It seems some players on Deity (like you and @ sampsa) value IMP more than people playing on Monarch and below do.
IMP is often strong if it's combined with decent starting techs and/or a good second trait to support the fast expansion, like you said, Vicky (IMP + FIN). Suleiman (IMP + PHI, starts with Agri + TW), Cathy (IMP + CRE, half-priced libraries for a faster GScientist) and AC (IMP + IND, strong early UU) are good IMP leaders as well. But when IMP meets another crappy trait and weak starting techs, like Charlie, it just makes people feel terrible.

Not sure how that plays out in SP Monarch game but some of my Pitboss games were played on Monarch and IMP is amazing under these settings. Fast expansion with low maintenance and tech costs is very strong.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I wrote a long passage to respond to Fippy but I think @civac said it better than myself.

- - - - -

Not sure how unpopular but I think tech stealing is underused in general. It is true that most buildings are useless. That's because most buildings provide multipliers to raw output and the percentages are small. But espionage buildings generate raw points. They do not require citizens or land. It's free raw output.

It's also why I think the national park is underrated.

 

[sampsa]

Who would claim they are best thou?
I think all would agree that wet corn is the best tile overall.

I have seen gold being called the best tile in the game, but I do agree that 6-tiles are a lot stronger. And still, gold is great to settle on.

 

[Nick723]

How to strengthen PRO... how about... free walls in every city! I don't even think it's overpowered

I’d like to see PRO will a passive espionage boost. I’m not sure what would be balanced (+50-100%?) but would open up some interesting strategies with those leaders.