Which aspect of Civ 4 do you dislike the most?

[x23]

Which aspect irks you the most or is most detrimental to your enjoyment of the game? Most of the game aspects have been improved, corruption and pollution are eradicated..

 

[BlackMage]

AI limitations. I understand, however, that a computer doesn't think like a person, i.e. irrationally and out of the box.

 

[Harry Haller]

There is no "cold war" in the modern era (ie, there is no risk that military conflict is going to trigger a nuclear exchange). I don't think I've ever seen an AI build a nuclear missile, and the short distance between the completion of the Manhattan Project and the ability to build SDIs means that you have a very narrow window of time to use your own.

 

[InFlux5]

I would say the graphics, which isn't an option. It's not that I think graphics are the most important element of a game, but Civ IV's are very disorienting and doing "gel" or coalesce very well. It's extremely easy for me to overlook an enemy unit, and the city info as displayed on the map looks awful. (E.g. what's with the lame circular graphic for what you're building? The line of text already tells you what you're building, and the graphic is usually too small to communicate anything to the player.)

I wish it wasn't important, but it is. The look and feel of the game is annoying.

 

[lord_graywolfe]

mine would be other. i have a few gripes about some units but thats about it. stuff like why do you get the spearman with hunting but cant make them untill you get bronze working, and the navies need to be improved. as for the rest i like it alot since the last patch came out.

 

[Chieftess]

AI limitations. I understand, however, that a computer doesn't think like a person, i.e. irrationally and out of the box.

You deny the power of Soren!? Heathen!

I thought he did a pretty good job with the AI for about 2 years of development. He's only one person...

 

[seelk]

The aspect I hate the most about this game is that I still suck at it.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I can stand tough diplomacy; in fact I relish it. Tokugawa I find understandable, since they're trying to model his historical isolationism, and it's never been particularly annoying, since I've always been able to convert him to my religion, and that's all I need him for. But Isabella is a pain in the a**.

 

[Nooble]

I don't like Religion. It plays too much of a role in the beginning to mid-late game. If you aren't the same religion as another Empire, that Empire will hate you. And if everyone believes in the same religion, then there will be close to no wars at all.

 

[Barney's Soul]

I don't like Religion. It plays too much of a role in the beginning to mid-late game. If you aren't the same religion as another Empire, that Empire will hate you. And if everyone believes in the same religion, then there will be close to no wars at all.

That's what I thought....on a game on terra/noble/default settings 2 guys were eliminated and me and 6 guys were all the same religion....3 world wars broke out between 1650 and 2015...world war meaning that everybody was involved.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Graphics Vs System useage. While the graphics are ok I suspect a bit of poor efficiency because the graphics don't contain anything really special yet they still give your PC one hell of a whack. It is better with the patch as it paged out units tat are not visible but more needs to be done and something that simple should have been included in the box.

 

[Vladesch]

I dont have a problem with any of the options you gave, however there are still some problems that you didnt mention.
1) I would like to see either a zone of control, or free attacks on pieces that move through zones of control. Youre pretty much forced to attack other pieces to stop them entering your territory, an forts are made useless.
2) Some pieces dont have long enough lifetimes. It seems just as you have researched one, its upgrade is coming along in a few turns. Canons are a good example of this, or musketeers.
3) I dont like the way the AI will treat other AI's differently from the human. It seems the AI's trade techs very often, but in order for the human to get a decent deal, you have to wait for the AI to make contact.
4) Not being able to do anything with deserts or mountains takes a bit away from the game. In other civs you could irrigate desert (for 1 food), or mine mountains (for 2 shields).
5) Ocean travel comes too late.

 

[Cdrommel]

For me its a close tie between the low framerate and Isabella.

 

[gmanne]

Diplomacy without question. I feel like I have Dr Evil telling me "I have a whole bag of "sh!" with your name on it" every time I see those cursed red 'options'.
'We just don't like you enough' is fine, as long as 'We wet ourselves in your presence and will do anything you ask', is also available.

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

Other: "We demand you cancel your deals with the vile *insert seemingly random civ here*"

Honestly people...if you hate them that much KILL THEM! Don't bring me into your little feud, unless you're willing to PAY ME.

 

[MachDelta]

I voted Combat, but to me that includes things like unit techs/upgrades, no zone of control, etc. I HATE the combat bonuses though. The things like "+50% versus whatever", because they make no freaking sense to me. One of my other favorite strat games is Rome:Total War (Barbarian Invasion!), and I guess i've been spoiled by it's fantastic unit ballance. Everything has a strength and a foil, and they all make sense. None of this "defending vs everything with archers" crap or how axemen (berserkers) are somehow able to destroy spearmen (WTH?). That, stupid stuff like upgrading your Cossak to a Gunship and actually faring WORSE versus Cavalry... that shouldn't happen.

Anyways, thats what I hate most about Civ4. My comp can handle it pretty well (at least until the late game anyways), the AI doesn't bother me too much (it's light-years ahead of a lot of games), religion is a neat addition (IMO), and i'm used to researching games on the web instead of relying on a civlopedia. But this nonsensical combat/military stuff drives me batty sometimes. I usually just get lazy and overwhelm with sheer numbers as opposed to trying to decipher and then juggle the goofy units in some sort of alternate-universe strategy.

Still a fun game though!

 

[King Jason]

Yea, religion kind of sucks. It's too much of a defining factor of who likes who in the world. I mean in this last game I had, me and russia were pretty close friends for quite a bit of time in the early game, we were seperated from both each other and other nations as well (found eachother with scouts).

Basically to make a long story short, what happened was I ended up founding christianity, while russia just caught judaism from a closer empire. Naturally we both converted to our respective religions, and russia canceled trades and even open borders a few turns later.

I think Religion is the only diplomacy modifier I've seen that does +3-5 and -3-5 on your relationship.

 

[oagersnap]

To me it's the score system. It just doesn't make sense that you get more points by winning a conquest victory in 1000 BC on settler difficulty on a duel map than by winning a diplomatic victory in 2000 AD on a large map on prince difficulty.

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

System requirements. If they weren't so high, we could have bigger maps and this would allow us to build larger Civs. As it is, its rare to have one at more then 15 cities.

 

[gettingfat]

My list (even I still enjoy the game):

- Combat problem. For example, too much credits are given to the defenders. Realistically, attackers should also take advantage of the landscape to a certain extent (except attack a fortified city). Horse archers charging from a hill to a group of axemen fortified on a grassland and lose half of the time is ridiculous to me. On the other hand, some defending units should be able to exercise zone of control. I also believe that one should not be able to see everything within your cultural border, unless you have units stationed there, some structures like fortress or guard towers, or proper tech like optics and satellite. Right now sneak attacks are almost impossible. Fix the catapults as well.

- Give me back the colony. No sense you can't use an iron till a zillion turns later because it's just at the corner of your big cross.

- Too much emphasis on forest chop. It turns out whenever I start in a big stretch of forests, I know I'm going to win the game.

- Late game problem. As I once started a thread on this topic, when you're significantly behind in 1600AD, you'll usually lose. The research for late game techs are also not rewarding, hence not exciting. When you get Alphabet early, you'd say "yes!"; when you get recycling, laser, etc, well... just a tech. Late game battles are very tedious. Late game wonders or projects are not significant.

- Poorly made spies.

- Diplomacy.

- Still rarely allow a truly expansive British style empire that is based on colonization. If you want a city on the other end of the continent you either use communism, build a forbidden city or Versailles (the AIs almost always beat you for this one). Very limited options.

- Some lack of details: advisory screens that give little advice; civilpedia that is not knowledgeable; custom games that not very customizable and tend to forget your last setting; barbarian activity option only insane/ a lot/ zero