What Civilization IV is missing

[boneys26]

there is one thing missing, we spend all our time trying to fight off attackers or attacking the AI for a resource we haven't got (or just for fun) and researching now civ 1, 2, 3, i had no problem with research as each thing we researched gave us something but in civ4 most of the time researching will get you something but what does rocketry get you? there is nothing that i can see from rocketry untill the ICBM (maybe the jet fighter not sure) fraxis have left a void in the game. I think fraxis have put alot into the game but they have cut short the units because they think making the game more editable we can make our own units. i have 3Dsmax 7 but don't know how to make units, I have spent almost 2 months trying to teach myself c & c++ to make some codes for the game but am getting no where. they should have given us the basic units as before so the AI knows how to use them. ok rant over for now. but fraxis should have done more for us non programmers out there.

 

[zeeter]

I still think that Settlers are far to valuable and should be constucted instantaneousely, good point also that settlers should cost you two population points from cities. I think also that it would add more realism and pose a more challengeing gameplay if natural disasters were introduced again. Random events are in many cases what has put some civilizations ahead of others so I belive that it would add another dimension to the game.

I guess it comes down to personal preference. I just prefer the way it is now. The old way wasn't bad, either - with the losing two pops per settler. On the other hand, we don't lose population when building a military unit, so in fact it actually makes more sense doing it the current way. Both types of units are essentally just people - so either they both lose pops or neither.

 

[King Flevance]

i have 3Dsmax 7 but don't know how to make units, I have spent almost 2 months trying to teach myself c & c++ to make some codes for the game but am getting no where.

How did you get that? <- Green with envy.

That stuff is expensive.

 

[Underdawg]

Again, there must be a balance of gameplay and realism. Attaining that balance is a must for the game to be fun and immersive.

Oh, and to the person talking about the religion "nonsense", I think it makes the game better! More political issues to squabble or unite on! Even if you don't condone religions in real life, how does it hurt you in games?

I wish each era was longer, but the build times for units not too long like in Marathon, but not too short either, or else it is unbalanced. I think the Realism mod has a good balance though I stopped playing it due to inefficiency in performance (40second turns at 1AD!) and I play through the World Map 18civs like butter.

 

[Nares]

How did you get that? <- Green with envy.

That stuff is expensive.

And then to not be able to use it...

It's a video game. There's certain limitations placed upon it as a result. Realism can only meld so well with quality gameplay. As was said previously, random events such as an earthquake were removed for gameplay reasons, despite reducing the realism of the game.

Keep in mind, also, that some of the things you're asking for were implemented in earlier Civ games, and removed. Others were probably implemented in alpha/beta versions of all of the games, and were also removed. Again, gameplay and realism are a balance.

Notice that there are other games on the market. Some of them sacrifice gameplay for realism, others realism for gameplay. Typically, the ones that promote gameplay are more successful. The ones that promote realism tend to do poorly. Ultimatly, Civ's success lies in its excellent balance of the two aspects.

The only things I see the game lacking are as follows:

1) A gamespeed at which research is slowed down, but not production (OP seems to be looking for this as well). Marathon is a partial acknowledgement of this (units move at the same rate, so you can use the same era units for far more battles on Marathon speed than you can on Quick or Normal speed).

2) Who got rid of the Palace improvement feature? One of my favorite parts of the original Civ (quite possibly the thing that attracted me to it most) was building my palace from a stone hovel to some grand structure (though I could never fully improve it, which always vexxed me).

As for editing, a lot of the things you're looking to edit can be done through the XML files, which really only requires moderate brain power and Notepad to do. Leaders names, city names, new civs, etc can all be permenantly edited or added in this way. A little exploration will reveal things like the Minor civ, which I believe was included as a basis for creating a new civ, or additional artwork for things such as leader heads and civ flags.

 

[boneys26]

I got it from a man with a dog in my online local

 

[romelus]

i don't like units healing for free. wars should be expensive

also don't like the simplified naval warfare, it's basically just a battleship orgy

 

[King Flevance]

2) Who got rid of the Palace improvement feature? One of my favorite parts of the original Civ (quite possibly the thing that attracted me to it most) was building my palace from a stone hovel to some grand structure (though I could never fully improve it, which always vexxed me).

Actually, check in your Civ 4/Assets/Interface folder and you will see a "Civ4ThroneRoomStyleInfos" XML file. It was put on hold, I think so T2 could race against AOE3 and at the same time hit their quarterly. But it is in there hidden atm. Same with the idea of city styles being different based off the civ you play which they are pulling out of hiding in warlords. I wouldnt doubt there is even more hidden codes lurking in the XML that are just hiding atm.

 

[Magnon I]

Perhaps I am to hung up on the B.C. and A.D. timeframe. Seeing as how they have now introduced religeon in to the game wouldn&#180;t it perhaps make sense to remove the B.C. and the A.D. from the game calander and just have year 1 through year 6050? Just throwing it out there. Strange to invent chrisianity before the birth of christ

 

[synthboy]

Perhaps I am to hung up on the B.C. and A.D. timeframe. Seeing as how they have now introduced religeon in to the game wouldn´t it perhaps make sense to remove the B.C. and the A.D. from the game calander and just have year 1 through year 6050? Just throwing it out there. Strange to invent chrisianity before the birth of christ

Good point. Of course everybody would throw their toys out of the pram without some sort of RL grounding.

 

[Older than Dirt]

They could just use the Jewish calendar. That wouldn't bother anyone, would it?

 

[King Flevance]

Actually, check in your Civ 4/Assets/Interface folder and you will see a "Civ4ThroneRoomStyleInfos" XML file. It was put on hold, I think so T2 could race against AOE3 and at the same time hit their quarterly. But it is in there hidden atm. Same with the idea of city styles being different based off the civ you play which they are pulling out of hiding in warlords. I wouldnt doubt there is even more hidden codes lurking in the XML that are just hiding atm.

Also to add to this post, the manual makes references to the throne room. There is suppose to be a button in the advisor menu in the top right that takes you to the throne room. More evidence of an unfinished game. "Rushed out the door before it was finished" is what I think of when I think of Civ 4. There is alot of proof if your willing to put the pieces together.

 

[Smidlee]

One thing I mis the most is Civ2 space race. I could try to build a big slower ship but a chance losing the space race or a small faster ship to beat the AI. civ3 and civ4 space race is less interesting and less of a race.

 

[King Flevance]

One thing I mis the most is Civ2 space race. I could try to build a big slower ship but a chance losing the space race or a small faster ship to beat the AI. civ3 and civ4 space race is less interesting and less of a race.

I agree. Space race use to be fun until 3. Thats when I just started turning it off. 4 seems like they just borrowed 3's. Hopefully, this is hidden or not implemented yet and they plan on going more in depth again.

 

[Magnon I]

They could just use the Jewish calendar. That wouldn't bother anyone, would it?

I don´t know. I have no idea how the Jewish calander is constructed. They could just skip calanders all together for all I care just have year 1, year 2 and so on.....

 

[Magnon I]

Good point. Of course everybody would throw their toys out of the pram without some sort of RL grounding.

Uhhh ok, not sure how to take that comment... Did you just call me a baby? What does RL stand for?

 

[ClockExplosion]

Also to add to this post, the manual makes references to the throne room. There is suppose to be a button in the advisor menu in the top right that takes you to the throne room. More evidence of an unfinished game. "Rushed out the door before it was finished" is what I think of when I think of Civ 4. There is alot of proof if your willing to put the pieces together.

I wouldn't exactly called it that. The original version of Civilization III had multiplayer built into it, but it was a "hidden" feature that was only brought out with Play the World or whatever.

I wouldn't say rush out of the door, but instead "trying to actually make a profit and a good game at the same time - so, let's lock unnecessary features".

A lot of games do actually do this. It's nothing new. They're just waiting till later (the expansion) to finish features that, while will add a new element to the game, are relatively unnecessary for the enjoyment of the actual game.

I don't know about you, but I've been enjoying Civ IV without the throne room. Does anyone actually yell out their monitor, screaming "WHY THE HELL ISN'T THERE A THRONE ROOM I HATE THIS GAME"? If you do, you really do have your priorities mixed up.

 

[King Flevance]

I wouldn't exactly called it that. The original version of Civilization III had multiplayer built into it, but it was a "hidden" feature that was only brought out with Play the World or whatever.

I wouldn't say rush out of the door, but instead "trying to actually make a profit and a good game at the same time - so, let's lock unnecessary features".

A lot of games do actually do this. It's nothing new. They're just waiting till later (the expansion) to finish features that, while will add a new element to the game, are relatively unnecessary for the enjoyment of the actual game.

I don't know about you, but I've been enjoying Civ IV without the throne room. Does anyone actually yell out their monitor, screaming "WHY THE HELL ISN'T THERE A THRONE ROOM I HATE THIS GAME"? If you do, you really do have your priorities mixed up.

Well, this depends on like I said "if your willing to put the pieces together." If you do not want to see it as the game was rushed out the door, you will simply deny it and refuse to believe it because you don't want to.

Where you mention multiplayer being hidden in 3, the manual did not refer to multi-player. As in they knew they were not going to put it in on the vanilla version. The manual for 4 also mentions that the AI no longer settles worthless city sites. However, they had not fixed this yet as many people have posted issues with the AI making a city on ice, tiles that culture swallows in a matter of a few turns, etc. There is many reasons as to why I find it hard to "not see" the game was rushed out the door incomplete on behalf of Take2.

It all depends on if your willing to put the pieces together. The whole "thats how business works" is a load of bull too. We as the consumers decide how business works. People have accepted this garbage release as perfectly fine, so don't be surprised if Civ 5 (if still owned by T2) has a shabbier release than 4 if it suits their pocketbooks. If we as the public will accept this release as a "good release" then what consists of a poor release?

 

[Dagenham Dave]

No, that is how business works. If anything is "a load of bull" it is the notion that "we the customers decide how business works".

 

[King Flevance]

No, that is how business works. If anything is "a load of bull" it is the notion that "we the customers decide how business works".

Um, have you heard of supply and demand? If people stop buying from Take 2 because of their practices like this, they go out of business or something less drastic but they do feel it. (Look up or google the word "boycott") Then they will have to act accordingly. Thus, the customers have effectively changed the "way business works" for Take 2.
EDIT: I am not suggesting a large boycott as I know that is not going to happen. I have my own personal boycott going on atm but am not asking anyone to join in. But dont act all shocked when Take 2 acts accordingly now and shafts us again on part 5. The bought the Civ title because its a money maker and T2 plans on capitalizing on that.

This release was crap. If you refuse to see it as such, then far be it from me to stop you, as if I could anyways. But I think anyone refusing the poor release quality here is merely too excited over the idea of a part four to the series to be able to see when someone shafts them.

Just know that when you defend Civ 4's release, your not defending firaxis, your giving a to Take 2. Firaxis itself is neutral in this whole topic.