What are your Civilization IV unpopular opinions?

[TheMeInTeam]

I believe a significant part of the design of slavery in Civ 4 is a means of normalizing/balancing otherwise too-variable terrain. It prevents positions with lots of grassland hills from having a strict production advantage.

If you make it significantly worse, then a lot more positions will feel like those plains-surrounded woofer positions you can get on dry tectonics maps, coastal positions become much worse than inland positions, and the advantage afforded to traditional "bureaucracy cap" with river cottages grows even more...as they could both get infra out and then crank units at similar pace to previously, in contrast to food-rich but hills-limited positions.

Slavery in Civ 4 is nonsense from a historical perspective (though so is chopping forests into spaceship parts...). As a --> converter, however, it is a crucial part of the game balance as civs expand and set up for late game. Altering it would force a heavy rework of the Civ 4 systems in general. Notice that Civ 5 and 6 don't have it, and changed the nature of production, moved lumber mills earlier, and made numerous other changes to compensate. IMO 6 handles the yield tradeoffs pretty well, but it's necessarily quite different. Not as simple as merely nerfing slavery.

 

[Fippy]

Slavery imo would be better balanced with 20 / population, on par with pre-math forest chops.
Could be increased later by reaching a tech like SM (random example..not making much sense lol, but SM could use some bonus).

It's so powerful cos with 30 eveything can be whipped easily early game, granaries & workers sit at 60 cost so those numbers match perfectly.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Could be increased later by reaching a tech like SM

If "SM" is short for "Scientific Method", the implications of this are interesting on several levels .

I'm not sure if this would be good for Civ 4, for the reasons above. Right now, whips are pretty close to grassland hills in trade. You get benefit of something sooner, but also deal with -1 for a bit. At 20/pop it's a lot more rough. Food resources are a lot more reliable than terrain distribution in Civ 4.

 

[krikav]

Isn't the only problem with slavery that the granary is so ridiculusly overpowered...?

 

[civac]

Isn't the only problem with slavery that the granary is so ridiculusly overpowered...?

You may well be right. Slavery also makes attacking in Civ4 very hard but because a sufficiently desperate defender can squeeze obscene amounts of units out of his land.

One mod I know of has nerfed slavery to 30 hammers for the first pop and then 20 for all subsequent ones. (So a pop2 whip is 50 hammers, pop3 whip 70 and so on.) It's not very elegant unfortunately.

 

[Fippy]

Yup i picked Scientific Method cos i thought it's funny
Whips and green hills are unfortunately no contest, as Krikav wrote: Granaries make whips so much stronger than hills.
Many peoples avoid building mines early for that reason. Sure they can be helpful for wonders, IMP-Settlers etc..but any random new city will rarely want a mine built (and they consume worker turns). They want their and then whip and/or chop everything important in.

 

[Melchizedek]

I've recently come back to Civ 4 after spending awhile with 5 and 6. I just think 4 is more fun. My unpopular opinion is that the game is most fun on Emperor/Monarch and without using slavery or chop overflows and keeping wars mostly defensive or at least plausibly justified (i.e. when forward settled). The AI can be challenging at these levels (at least to me) if I refrain from taking advantage in those ways. A second opinion which might be unpopular too: On the levels I mentioned Elizabeth is a clear 2nd to HC as strongest leader. The combination of financial and philosophical has some antisynergy, but they are both such economic boosts that it doesn't matter.

 

[lymond]

The combination of financial and philosophical has some antisynergy, but they are both such economic boosts that it doesn't matter.

Yep, that's really a myth. Philo is so good no matter what it's paired with, and financial is just an added boost. Your still going to produce a lot of great people regardless of having cottages...in any game. Anyway, Lizzy is good indeed.

Play how you wish. Important thing is to have fun and there are many ways to have fun with this game. Defensive is far far far from my style of play...that's for sure..ha.

 

[Lexicus]

But the Marian reforms of Rome, wherein an enlisted soldier had the opportunity to retire in comfort after service, led to a more committed and disciplined fighting force, a distinction which the game doesn't accurately reflect in the ancient era.

Slavery doesn't represent slaves who are soldiers themselves (slave soldiers is a relatively rare historical phenomenon, and I would argue that conscripted soldiers are certainly not the same as enslaved soldiers. What slavery represents is slaves doing the primary production necessary to field those soldiers.

YMMV I guess, I don't disagree that slavery is too powerful from a balance perspective.

 

[Veriaqa]

Civ IV is good game in Civ series, but compared to VI it lacks so many things that make Civ VI so much better than Civ IV (hexagon tiles, district, the builder and trader systems, etc).

 

[krikav]

Civ IV is good game in Civ series, but compared to VI it lacks so many things that make Civ VI so much better than Civ IV (hexagon tiles, district, the builder and trader systems, etc).

 

[Ita Bear]

Just a reminder that this thread is about unpopular opinions, not wrong opinions.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

 

[sampsa]

Kind regards

 

[Licentia]

Here's mine:

I hate the diplomacy in Civ IV. I keep playing Civ III simply because I despise the diplomacy in Civ IV!

I detest the diplomacy in Civ IV!!!

I was playing a game on Noble, and I realized that the Dutch were running away with a cultural victory, so I had only one choice which was to go to war with them. After I took the first city, I decided to ask for peace in order to rebuild my armies for the next strike. I waited the mandatory 10 turns, and then declared war again. I did this 3 or 4 times, and then the other 3 nations in the game all declared war on me the same turn. What I didn't realize was that I was receiving a -1 diplomacy penalty, with every other Civ, every time I declared war.

In another game, I had the Aztecs on my left, and the Zulu on my right. The Aztecs literally declared war on me 10-12 times, until I was so far advanced in tech that their attack on my city was a mass suicide (Elephants vs Infantry.) The Zulu attacked me exactly 6 times, all vain attacks as well.
In the process of these 16+ wars with the Aztecs and Zulu, all pointless wars that the AI had zero chance of winning, not one other AI got upset at the Aztecs or the Zulu over their repeated attacks. If I declare war multiple times, I pay a penalty. But the AI can declare war as much as it wants without any penalties at all!

In another game I was trying hard to be friends with Egypt. Rome attacked me for the second time. I beat them off easily the first time (another pointless war,) and then in the second war I intended to ask Egypt for help. The option to declare war on Rome was in red, and the response from Egypt was something like, "The Romans are our good friends, we don't want to hurt our friendship." But your scumbag "friend" keeps declaring war on me unprovoked, so how can they still be your friend?!?

I prefer to play a peaceful builder game. On Noble difficulty and higher, it is impossible to do. The AI declares war again and again with no penalties, and I don't find it fun at all to fight the same AI repeatedly when it's impossible to get them out of my land. At least on Civ III I can kill their attackers one by one when they enter my land, so that they don't remain turn after turn. With Civ IV, I have to wait until they bombard my city, and then mass suicide all their units attacking my city.

I'd say that about 19 times out of 20, when the AI attacks, it's because they are butt hurt that I didn't give in to all of their silly whims, and not because they actually have a chance of winning the war. I don't find this fun at all!

I would love to love Civ IV, because it's better than Civ III in so many ways. But the diplomacy and the endless pointless wars ruin the game for me.

Question, are there any mods that fix these issues?

 

[NothingBesideRemains]

Here's mine:

I hate the diplomacy in Civ IV. I keep playing Civ III simply because I despise the diplomacy in Civ IV!

I detest the diplomacy in Civ IV!!!

I was playing a game on Noble, and I realized that the Dutch were running away with a cultural victory, so I had only one choice which was to go to war with them. After I took the first city, I decided to ask for peace in order to rebuild my armies for the next strike. I waited the mandatory 10 turns, and then declared war again. I did this 3 or 4 times, and then the other 3 nations in the game all declared war on me the same turn. What I didn't realize was that I was receiving a -1 diplomacy penalty, with every other Civ, every time I declared war.

In another game, I had the Aztecs on my left, and the Zulu on my right. The Aztecs literally declared war on me 10-12 times, until I was so far advanced in tech that their attack on my city was a mass suicide. The Zulu attacked me exactly 6 times, all vain attacks as well.
In the process of these 16+ wars with the Aztecs and Zulu, all pointless wars that the AI had zero chance of winning, not one other AI got upset at the Aztecs or the Zulu over their repeated attacks. If I declare war multiple times, I pay a penalty. But the AI can declare war as much as it wants without any penalties at all!

In another game I was trying hard to be friends with Egypt. Rome attacked me for the second time. I beat them off easily the first time (another pointless war,) and then in the second war I intended to ask Egypt for help. The option to declare war on Rome was in red, and the response from Egypt was something like, "The Romans are our good friends, we don't want to hurt our friendship." But your scumbag "friend" keeps declaring war on me unprovoked, so how can they still be your friend?!?

I prefer to play a peaceful builder game. On Noble difficulty and higher, it is impossible to do. The AI declares war again and again with no penalties, and I don't find it fun at all to fight the same AI repeatedly when it's impossible to get them out of my land. At least on Civ III I can kill their attackers one by one when they enter my land, so that they don't remain turn after turn. With Civ IV, I have to wait until they bombard my city, and then mass suicide all their units attacking my city.

I'd say that about 19 times out of 20, when the AI attacks, it's because they are butt hurt, and not because they have a chance of winning. I don't find this fun at all!

I would love to love Civ IV, because it's better than Civ III in so many ways. But the diplomacy and the endless pointless wars ruin the game for me.

Well you can play with the 'Always Peace' option if you like that style of game.

Alternatively, a bit of background knowledge om warfare and diplomacy could help tremendously. First understand that yes, AI's do get penalties for declaring war on you *with Civs who are please/friendly with you*.

Whether you can bribe one civ into war against another depends on lots of factors and they are leader-dependant. Look up the personality of each leader you are up against when you get into a game, and use that meta-knowledge against them.

For warfare, a few seige units also could help you clear out enemy stacks quite efficiently with collateral damage, before they suicide on your cities.

Finally, if your tech advantage is so high that you can suffer a dozen wars with no meaningful losses, turn their declarations against them - use the opportunity to take *their* cities, and maybe even grab them as a vassal!

To each their own, but it seems that you could get what you're after, without spending much time learning.

 

[Licentia]

Thanks for your detailed response!

Well you can play with the 'Always Peace' option if you like that style of game.

I don't want "Always Peace" but on the other hand, 16+ pointless wars that the AI can't win, is about as fun as banging my head against the wall.

Alternatively, a bit of background knowledge om warfare and diplomacy could help tremendously. First understand that yes, AI's do get penalties for declaring war on you *with Civs who are please/friendly with you*.

I'm listening...

I find it hard to believe that the Dutch were giving into all the ridiculous demands that the AI gives, and were best buddies with all other nations, and still were way ahead in tech and culture. I suspect that the AI doesn't get all of the same ridiculous demands that I get.

Whether you can bribe one civ into war against another depends on lots of factors and they are leader-dependant. Look up the personality of each leader you are up against when you get into a game, and use that meta-knowledge against them.

I have to join a war for free or suffer a diplomatic penalty, but I have to pay the AI to join a war. That's my experience.

For warfare, a few seige units also could help you clear out enemy stacks quite efficiently with collateral damage, before they suicide on your cities.

I tried to use Catapults to defend my land, but there was no option for bombard (only when I attack a city does that option appear.) I have played Civ III extensively, so I immediately tried to use Catapults to bombard the enemy stack, and the option didn't exist. The only option is to use the Catapult to attack, and I suspect that my chance of a successful attack would be rated less than 50%. I haven't thought much about the benefits of collateral damage though...

Finally, if your tech advantage is so high that you can suffer a dozen wars with no meaningful losses, turn their declarations against them - use the opportunity to take *their* cities, and maybe even grab them as a vassal!

But if I take the time to build offensive units, with +25% City Attack, I'm taking production away from city improvements, and I'm not giving my units + 25% City Defense, etc.. I don't want to turn my production away from my peaceful builder game, unless it's the only way to prevent an AI victory.

Another thing is that I have to "help" the AI, even though they may be ahead in tech, but if I ask for help, I get "You are pressing us too hard."

 

[Jellybug]

The only option is to use the Catapult to attack, and I suspect that my chance of a successful attack would be rated less than 50%

@Licentia The catapult is likely to die. But given the collateral damage it will apply to the enemy stack, the attack can still be deemed a success. If you want to suicide catapults this way in the open field, it's useful to take the collateral damage promotion(barrage I think it's called) instead of city raider.

What you are saying broadly is true, the AI does have an anti-player bias. It seems not every individual leader is pursuing an individual victory. Mansa Musa happy to peace vassal to Shaka and funnel him techs. Or nobody caring that Pacal is going to win culture except you. Still, there are ways to abuse the diplo situation to your advantage such as bribing to war or to stop trade, which can lead to war between neighbors in short order. In the words of Absolute Zero and Teddy Roosevelt, walk softly but carry a large tech advantage

 

[NothingBesideRemains]

But if I take the time to build offensive units, with +25% City Attack, I'm taking production away from city improvements, and I'm not giving my units + 25% City Defense, etc.. I don't want to turn my production away from my peaceful builder game, unless it's the only way to prevent an AI victory.

This is where optimal play might just diverge from your preferred playstyle. Very few buildings are actually good in 'optimal' play when compared with the value of simply building a conquering army or even just Wealth/research. It may seem unintuitive, but those tantalizing building benefits of markets, grocers, colliseums, stables, harbours, customs houses etc.. only pay off situationally (much closer to 'never' than 'always).

However. Humans can vastly beat out the AI in this game in warfare tactics, with a good enough understanding of the game (ie: like this seige discussion).

The other thing that humans can do best at where AI does worse, is... diplomacy (especially bulbing for key techs, trading for other techs and to instigate perpetual war with your own hands clean). The AI is effectively playing roleplay-mode, and humans can abuse that meta-knowledge of how other leaders will act to our benefit.

Without those two tools in your handbag, the game is certainly harder, but I would say that you should still be able to win up to at least to Emporer level if all othe areas of your game are still solid (ESPECIALLY early-game worker management and appropriately fast ecpansion through the game's most broken mechanic: slavery + granaries). Even at Immortal, many 'less-than-perfect' strategies can work. Still, waste enough hammers on mediocre buildings can crush your game quite quickly.

 

[Orion Pax]

My own (very) unpopular opinions are:

I don’t actually think the unhappiness mechanic in Emancipation is poor design. In concept at least.

Rather I would say it feels annoying to most of us because it deters us from some of the better civics in the game, two we really rely on for optimal play. But that to me speaks to 1) How borderline overpowered Slavery & Caste are, and/or 2) How difficult upper levels are.

But the dynamic of a civic’s effect that grows over time based on other Civ use is to me pretty interesting. And also models fairly well what it’s trying to: growing discontent of physical subjugation.

To improve Emancipation, there needs to be more parity between the civics (i.e. make Emancipation better). It needs to have some positive benefit other than 2X cottage growth. Zero upkeep is one I’ve often thought, for example.

 

[Lexicus]

Emancipation should add a hammer to Towns like Free Speech, then it would be stronger.