Orango Nash
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2023
- Messages
- 5
I must have played nearly all 4X games since Civ 1 was released. Stil lcome back to Civ 4 a couple of times a year and am always impressed by it. As some have said, it does feel like the peak of the original Civ vision. So from there, all the rivals can do is make arbitrary changes. And gratuitous changes. Like squares to hexes. I've no problem with either...ultimately they make no difference to how you feel about a game. And that's just it, they make no meaningful difference. Well, other than some people do feel smarter for using hexes - which is odd, because how can being able to move in 6 directions require more intellectual capacity than moving in 8 directions? Somebody should tell the people who invented chess! Anyway...that's just one specific, there are many more, superficial, changes. While, ironically, losing some of what made Civ 4 genuinely unique and great.
What I notice when I start a game of Civ 4 is how every turn counts, from the start. It's right back to what Sid Meier said about a strategy game needing meaningful decisions. Civ 4 trumps all competitors in this aspect. I've played a little AOW: Planetfall recently and straight off, there is so much more time doing not much, just clicking "End Turn". Hardly any meaningful decisions. And similar applies to the entire AOW series, really. Also Galactiv Civ, all of the Endless games ("Endturn" games!) . Decisions are fewer. Games are more railroaded. Follow a simple recipe and click end turn, watch your empire grow and win.
And then there's the *length* of the competitors games. I can rattle through a game of Civ 4 in maybe 6 - 10 hours, win or lose. Which then leaves me plenty of time to start a new one, with a new leader, new map, new victory conditions , most probably a very different game. The competitors have less decisions, more end turning clicking and they can go on for 50+ hours on the same map. More quantity, but less quality. Yes, I get that it is a general problem with 4X games, that time from when you know you will win (or lose) to actually winning (or losing) can be excessive and quite a chore. But in Civ 4, it's 2 or 3 hours. In Planetfall, it can be 20 hours.
As a meta-aspect of games, for me, the sweet spot is a map that I can play in 10 hours, then generate another different one and again, finish in 10 hours. If it takes 50+ hours on one, it becomes a slog and I imagine most other 4X games I've tried, that is the point I stopped. One 50 hour game. Little motivation to start another..then uninstall. And end up back to Civ 4.
The lack of meaningful decisions means that different maps, different factions, lack the variety of Civ 4. Though its far from perfect, the AI opponents in Civ 4 have way more personality than in the 4X rivals. No amount of hexes, 1UPT , districts or tactical battles can fix that! So Civ 4 has way more replay potential than other games.
Part of the answer to the question is to look at the number of threads here on "Strategy and Tactics" for each game. Civ 4 wins out by miles. Civ 5 fewer and Civ 6 even fewer. There's your answer - if you like "strategy", Civ 4 is the one with the deepest. Oh, and that isn't because it's been out longer than Civ 5 and 7. It has way more strategy discussion than Civ 3, too. It's because it has the best strategic possibilities. The best "meaningful decision" making. Those post numbers are Exhibit A that it is real and measurable, not just opinion.
Yet there are plenty of ways Civ 4 could still be improved. I am a bit disappointed than in the years since it's release, things like improving AI and diplomacy have never really been genuinely improved on. The road and rail map clutter is ugly . Workers have too much to do at start and nothing to do at end. It's all small improvements. For me, Civ 5 went off in a completely different direction. As some have said, captured a different market and left us oldies behind!
<EDIT> BTW I did used to have an account here and posted regularly many years ago, used to do GOTW of both Civ 4 and 5. Haven't visited for years, though and it appears that account was (sensibly) closed. Recent disappointment on the state of 4X games (Planetfall/MOTM remake/Gal Civ etc etc) led me back to Civ 4
What I notice when I start a game of Civ 4 is how every turn counts, from the start. It's right back to what Sid Meier said about a strategy game needing meaningful decisions. Civ 4 trumps all competitors in this aspect. I've played a little AOW: Planetfall recently and straight off, there is so much more time doing not much, just clicking "End Turn". Hardly any meaningful decisions. And similar applies to the entire AOW series, really. Also Galactiv Civ, all of the Endless games ("Endturn" games!) . Decisions are fewer. Games are more railroaded. Follow a simple recipe and click end turn, watch your empire grow and win.
And then there's the *length* of the competitors games. I can rattle through a game of Civ 4 in maybe 6 - 10 hours, win or lose. Which then leaves me plenty of time to start a new one, with a new leader, new map, new victory conditions , most probably a very different game. The competitors have less decisions, more end turning clicking and they can go on for 50+ hours on the same map. More quantity, but less quality. Yes, I get that it is a general problem with 4X games, that time from when you know you will win (or lose) to actually winning (or losing) can be excessive and quite a chore. But in Civ 4, it's 2 or 3 hours. In Planetfall, it can be 20 hours.
As a meta-aspect of games, for me, the sweet spot is a map that I can play in 10 hours, then generate another different one and again, finish in 10 hours. If it takes 50+ hours on one, it becomes a slog and I imagine most other 4X games I've tried, that is the point I stopped. One 50 hour game. Little motivation to start another..then uninstall. And end up back to Civ 4.
The lack of meaningful decisions means that different maps, different factions, lack the variety of Civ 4. Though its far from perfect, the AI opponents in Civ 4 have way more personality than in the 4X rivals. No amount of hexes, 1UPT , districts or tactical battles can fix that! So Civ 4 has way more replay potential than other games.
Part of the answer to the question is to look at the number of threads here on "Strategy and Tactics" for each game. Civ 4 wins out by miles. Civ 5 fewer and Civ 6 even fewer. There's your answer - if you like "strategy", Civ 4 is the one with the deepest. Oh, and that isn't because it's been out longer than Civ 5 and 7. It has way more strategy discussion than Civ 3, too. It's because it has the best strategic possibilities. The best "meaningful decision" making. Those post numbers are Exhibit A that it is real and measurable, not just opinion.
Yet there are plenty of ways Civ 4 could still be improved. I am a bit disappointed than in the years since it's release, things like improving AI and diplomacy have never really been genuinely improved on. The road and rail map clutter is ugly . Workers have too much to do at start and nothing to do at end. It's all small improvements. For me, Civ 5 went off in a completely different direction. As some have said, captured a different market and left us oldies behind!
<EDIT> BTW I did used to have an account here and posted regularly many years ago, used to do GOTW of both Civ 4 and 5. Haven't visited for years, though and it appears that account was (sensibly) closed. Recent disappointment on the state of 4X games (Planetfall/MOTM remake/Gal Civ etc etc) led me back to Civ 4

Last edited: