I didn't vote, as there were no "other" vote option.
Civ4 is a brilliant game, and so far it has made going back to civ2 feel like going back to the stone age - I've gotten so used to the interface of civ4, it feels strange using the numpad to move units around.
But there are a lot of things in civ4 which annoys me a lot, now that the first enthusiasm is over.
* The border system hasn't been implemented to the fullest. It is still a city based economy which requires tons of micromanagement on higher levels, in order to have a shooting chance against the AI. Zones of Control in civ2 were still a superior concept to the military/cultural borders in civ4, IMO.
* It sucks that you cannot build fortresses except in your own territory. It makes no sense, as they are primarily a means of expansion, both historically, and how they worked in previous civ games. They end up never being built.
* Removing tech-by-conquest means its a lot harder to come back in the game, if you're behind techwise.
* Too many "balancing" things. It seems the developers have been too afraid of the so-called "unbalancing" aspects, which were also the most fun and rewarding in earlier builds - such as unlimited railroad movement, the great wall, the great library, stealing techs from other civs, tech-by-conquest, powerful diplomats and spies, etc.
* Too little historical research and meaning, which was what made civ1 such a huge game. Too many historically excessive units. Where did "axemen", "macemen" and "praetorians" come from to qualify for such a huge importance in this game? They detract from the historical illusion I'd like to see. I can lose to an enemy which has gunpowder units, because my technology is inferior - but I cannot see why macemen should be more powerful, than say, crossbowmen? The units make less historical sense than in previous builds, and it makes losing a lot more irritating.
* I still miss the "marxist" citizens of civ1, where you'd clearly see the populations divide into bourgoisie and working class - and those rebellious.
* Diplomacy seems totally fixed, with the redded out objects. Even though you work up a relationship with another civ with +17 in relationships or something, at higher levels they will just barely trade one tech at a time with your most recent discovery. It quickly makes diplomacy very tedious to shop around for the best buy all the time. Would be more fun if they'd throw in some randomness there, so you'd might be surprised.
* Modding has been misunderstood as opening all the game files to the player. This is not it. Programmers may like to juggle with 100s of files to make one simple change to the game. I'd prefer one single "rules.txt" and "events.txt" file similar to civ2. It was what made the game so incredibly accessible to mod, - and NOT having access to all the inner workings of the game, and 100s of files of which you don't know which one to touch.
---
This is all too bad, because there are so many things I thoroughly enjoy in this game.
* For one thing, I enjoy that the AI is capable of cross-continent warfare, and wages some to times incredibly impressive campaigns (as well as some very crappy ones too).
* I enjoy sending out explorers and missionaries to other civs and gain line of sight into their cities.
* I love the combat system, in so many ways, and the collateral damage concept is brilliant.
I could go on. This game has so much for it, if just for those few annoying bits..... I'll keep playing it of course, because I hate losing at Prince level.
It's the whiners that do it for me.
