Thinking of giving up on Civ IV

[ometiklan]

I have been a fan of the Civ series since it came out in 1991, but I just haven't gotten into Civ IV like I would like. I enjoyed Civ III even though it had problems and many people disliked it. I was glad to hear of a new version, but I just haven't gotten addicted to this one like all the others.

I tried playing it again last week and I felt like I was just going through the motions, doing those things that were necessary to build my civilization and beat the other civs but I never felt like I was a part of it. Maybe my interests have changed and I simply don't like the game concept as much (I doubt it), but more likely it is because I don't feel connected to my civilization or my opponents.

Maybe it is the promotions of military units that make it feel like more of a RTS that I don’t like. I just loved transitioning from Knights to Dragoons in Civ II because I felt like I could feel the march of historical progress. Now it is Lvl3+++ axemen with bonuses against melee units, upgrading (cause you don’t want to lose that experience) to whatever. Bleh. And then the later units just fly by as a series of power increases.

I don’t feel connected to my Civ very much. Sure UUs (and if I get Warlords, UBs) make each civ different. I want uniqueness, but I feel like I select my civ simply on the traits of the leader and those unique elements, but don’t really feel each civ as being different once I get into the game. The “people” who were once annoying brats, rebelling at the slightest inconvenience, now are simply represented in my mind by a set of food/hunger and health/disease ratios. I feel more like a bean counter than a ruler. My advisors were once kinda charming talking heads giving repetitive, but sometimes helpful advice, now they are simply a series of clickable icons in the upper right. I know they haven’t changed that much from Civ III, but that is how I see them in Civ IV.

[ometiklan]

Part II:

Also I feel disconnected from my opponents. They are simply obstacles. They either hate me or tolerate me based on my religion, civics, etc. They demand stuff or trade stingily, but I don't feel like I can really interact with them or build an understanding. We all know that Civ has never been known for great diplomacy, but I am just more disappointed than I expected to be after all I heard about its development, and in previous Civs I could overlook this part because of how much I loved the rest of the game.

So, that is how I see Civ IV right now. I would prefer to see it in a much better light. I would like to like it as much as any of the others, to be addicted like all the others, but I just don’t think that will happen. I guess I can always look forward to Civ V.

If any of you guys have some comments that might help me see the joy of the game, the unique touches that should endear it to me once again, please share them.

[LordShiva]

I hear ya, man. These are exactly the same gripes I have with Civ4 (especially the RTS thing ). I am no longer a "Civ addict" like I used to be, in the days of Civ 1 and 2.

But, I still love it

My advice is to try it a little longer. Play on marathon - I find the problems I have with the game are amplified on "normal" (yeah, right ) speed. And every now and then, as you feel the passion fading (which will invariably happen), bump up the difficulty level, play as Romans, build up some Praets, declare war on all your neighbours, and go down in a blaze of flaming glory. It does wonders.

[CerberusIV]

I don't really find CivIV better or worse than previous incarnations. The military being more complex is probably an improvement but it is still not too difficult to beat the **** out of the AI's. At least something of a combined arms approach is now needed instead of just masses of one decisive type of unit.

I do find playing on Epic much better than Normal speed as your civ gets more time to develop (Marathon is too much for me). Also random leaders and fractal maps help as it becomes a challenge of playing what you got rather than an "ideal" civ.

Warlords is somewhat an improvement. The AI seems a little better. The UU's are mostly toned down (too much so in some cases) and the UB's add some nice touches (play the Ottomans, capture a city and think to yourself "how can these degenerate savages not bathe - let's have some baths at the end of that aqueduct so we have a Hammam and can be civilised").

Play around with some of the unusual maps, try a team game perhaps. Just experiment a bit and see if you can find something challenging that gets your interest.

[alms66]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
At least something of a combined arms approach is now needed instead of just masses of one decisive type of unit.

That's not true at all...

It helps, once you have some type of artillery to bring some along, but you can just as easily take a city with single-unit stacks of doom. I've done it dozens of times. It's easiest pre-artillery with axemen or swordsmen, after that I've used knights. After that I'm not too sure because I've only played a few games that far without getting bored and starting a new one.

[killomatic]

Originally posted by alms66


That's not true at all...

It helps, once you have some type of artillery to bring some along, but you can just as easily take a city with single-unit stacks of doom. I've done it dozens of times. It's easiest pre-artillery with axemen or swordsmen, after that I've used knights. After that I'm not too sure because I've only played a few games that far without getting bored and starting a new one.

The lower difficulties are meant to teach, not challenge. Get out of them and your single unit stacks of doom will fail, unless it's praetorians.

OP, I don't understand how you can feel disconnected from your opponents. Each one has an entirely unique AI, and there's tricks to being friendly with many of them. Just because they're a bit stingy doesn't make me feel disconnected from them, they're AI's, they need the boost (or you're playing on a very high difficulty and want the challenge). There are many games where I was allied with the same few AI the entire game, and they never felt like obstacles to me.

[Kuciwalker]

It helps, once you have some type of artillery to bring some along, but you can just as easily take a city with single-unit stacks of doom. I've done it dozens of times. It's easiest pre-artillery with axemen or swordsmen, after that I've used knights. After that I'm not too sure because I've only played a few games that far without getting bored and starting a new one.

Unless your opponent has any intelligence and hits you with a couple siege units, rendering your SOD worthless.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

It helps, once you have some type of artillery to bring some along, but you can just as easily take a city with single-unit stacks of doom. I've done it dozens of times. It's easiest pre-artillery with axemen or swordsmen, after that I've used knights. After that I'm not too sure because I've only played a few games that far without getting bored and starting a new one.

Unless your opponent has any intelligence and hits you with a couple siege units, rendering your SOD worthless.

I've never seen it happen, with the AI anyway.

[diemex]

Stacks of doom are still the deciding factor.

Starts early with catapaults.... You get a big enough stack and it doesnt matter what you face. You just keep whittling them down. The collatoral damage eventually makes any unit weak enough to kill.

Tanks later on with collatoral damage upgrades will tear any modern country to shreds in short order if you stockpile enough of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Starts early with catapaults.... You get a big enough stack and it doesnt matter what you face.

Until a few catapults hit your stack, reducing your catapults to half strength at best.

With enough warrior you can take down any unit, too, but it won't be cost-effective at all.

[rah]

Aren't siege units immune to collateral damage now in warlords?

[Kuciwalker]

If his stack is only Catapults it's dead anyway.

[Son of David]

I was trying to get back into Civ4 after a break ... just can't do it.

While I was away, I found my old Civ2 CD and had a blast replaying it.

Civ4 doesn't really compare any more, it doesn't have the lasting impression. In Civ2 you could build lots of stuff in the ancient era, and have proper ancient era wars, but Civ4 just feels like a clinical dash towards the end, like a race which happens to draw on elements of history rather than a simulation of history itself.

Civ4 is too mechanical. I just cannot seem to get any good wars in before 975 BCE. It's frustrating to see the early era, which is the most interesting, fade away, only for there to be an abnormally long medieval period. Renaissance era is good but in 99% of my games the industrial age is like a cold bath: IN and then OUT in a flash. The modern age drags on, and on, and on ....

[Blaupanzer]

Alms66 needs to play on a higher level to see AI SODs, feints, and unit-appropriate attacks. Not sure how to help ometiklan except to recommend marathon.

[rah]

Even though it can sometimes get humorous since the AI cycles through units when moving so your stack may get attacked by some units and then the seige unit attacks and you're wondering, gee maybe that should have been first.

[Mattimus20]

Son of David....

Try playing on Marathon mode (Warlords or Patch). Everything you just mentioned is the exact opposite with Marathon. You have enough time to do whatever you want.

[Solver]

Yeah. I can understand not liking the game speed, but that should be the last reason for giving up on Civ4. If none of the existing game speeds are your thing, you can easily customize your own. Give yourself more time in each era, or longer wars, or shorter wars, anything.

[Dis]

I'm not sure how many hours I've played, but I think I have played more civ4 than civ3. There is replayability. The game is just so much superior than civ2.

Makes me wonder why I played civ2 so much. I essentually played it the same way every time. I hated early wars in civ2. I always tried to avoid it. I loved it in the age of battleships, tanks, bombers, and yep, you guessed it... howitzers. True they were overpowered, but that's why I loved them.

I hated having no borders though. this is why I preferred to play the earth map as america. I hated starting too near an ai because they would always put cities within your cities.

[Bkeela]

Perhaps you need a break from the series for a few sequels or so. Civ II didn't interest me much, as it seemed just going through the motions of Civ I. Civ III was absolute garbage and unplayable for me.

Civ IV on the other hand has become a serious addiction. I can't get enough of it after almost a year of play.

[diemex]

I loved CIV2. I especially liked how easy it was to modify yourself without many 3rd party apps.

But CIV3 brought changes that for me are too important to go back to the older versions. ie: Stategic resources. Without oil you cant build armor... etc. That in itself is probably one of the best changes made to the series. (And yes the borders being respected is finally nice to see)

Still..... I miss CIV2 TOT where you had 4 'planets' going at once. That was fun.... but maybe a bit too much. My games got so long... I dont recall ever finishing a complete colonization of the Gas Giant.

Back on topic..... of the Civ games... (I had pretty much all of em) I find CIV4 to be the most enjoyable. I play it more than I did the others.... so they got something right.

[alms66]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Alms66 needs to play on a higher level to see AI SODs, feints, and unit-appropriate attacks.

Well, since it's been mentioned twice now, I'll let everyone know that I'm probably playing at the highest level I ever will in civ4. That's not the reason I haven't seen what you describe in AI behavior though, at least not the major part of the reason. I have seen the behavior in small doses, just never crushingly enough for me to really change anything drastic in my warfare.

I'm probably what most people would consider a "builder", though I don't label myself as such. I'm just not a warmonger. When I fight a war, there's always a reason behind it. I'm more of a "roleplayer" than that. I'll fight wars to gain critical resources or to gain strategic chokepoints or something like that, even fighting just to repay a previous AI attack sometimes, but never to increase my score, to "win", or any such silliness. It's always about the situation in the game.

Now, yes I know civ is just a game, and most games are made for one to win, but IMO, civ is in that class of games that are made for one to simply enjoy the experience. And, there's nothing fun about playing the higher levels, it's just work to me.

[CrONoS]

Marathon speed made me addicted again to this games.... And Arabs are so fun to play in Warlords!

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by alms66
I'm probably what most people would consider a "builder", though I don't label myself as such. I'm just not a warmonger. When I fight a war, there's always a reason behind it. I'm more of a "roleplayer" than that. I'll fight wars to gain critical resources or to gain strategic chokepoints or something like that, even fighting just to repay a previous AI attack sometimes, but never to increase my score, to "win", or any such silliness. It's always about the situation in the game.

Ditto, to a large extent, though not totally.

Late game I may attack to [i]increase my score, to "win", and such silliness.[i] I am learning to be more aggressive. My early-game aggressiveness is usually against barbarians, which is easy with praetorians.

[Foxhawk]

I've never liked civ games against ai, period. I only play multiplayer; can't beat interacting with the wit of a real person.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Dis
The game is just so much superior than civ2.

Makes me wonder why I played civ2 so much. I essentually played it the same way every time. I hated early wars in civ2. I always tried to avoid it. I loved it in the age of battleships, tanks, bombers, and yep, you guessed it... howitzers. True they were overpowered, but that's why I loved them.

I hated having no borders though. this is why I preferred to play the earth map as america. I hated starting too near an ai because they would always put cities within your cities.

I think one reason that older gamers (myself included, unfortunately ) have such fond memories of games such as Civ1, Civ2, Master of Magic, and Master of Orion 1 and 2 is that complex computer gaming was still fairly new in the early nineties, and we hadn't yet been inundated and de-sensitized with dozens of knockoffs and copycat games. The concepts, gameplay, and experieince offered by these games were still fairly novel to us. There also was not nearly as many competing products around a that time.

Now 15 years and hundreds (thousands?) of game releases later, any new game is inevitably going to get compared to the dozens of games in the "genre" that we have played previously. While playing civ4 or any new 4X game, experienced gamers are bound to think things like "Civ 4 has an interface just like Warcraft 3", "Rise of Nations has better pacing", "Call to Power 2 has more unconventional units", "Ages of Man has a better AI". Back in the days of Civ 1 and 2, there wasn't this massive basis for comparison and criticism that exists today, and we could delight in new experiences that we were having for the first time.

Sadly, a truly new type of game or gameplay is very rare today, as every game today is designed to fit neatly into one or two genres.

In terms of Civ 4 being addictive, the single player game was addictive for about eight or nine months after release. I played Civ1, 2, and 3 single players off and on for far longer periods of time. However, now I pretty much only play Civ4 Warlords multiplayer. One thing about multiplayer is that it is very hard to go back to playing the boring, predictable AI after playing some tense games against human competition.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by killomatic

The lower difficulties are meant to teach, not challenge. Get out of them and your single unit stacks of doom will fail, unless it's praetorians.

Or trebuchets.

[MikeH]

Trebuchets only have strength 4 on defense, you have a stack of only trebs and the AI will tear it apart before you get to their cities faster than they would a stack of cats.

[Strudo]

Mixed arms is good because is saves your attacking units from damage before they get to their destination. A couple of pikemen in a stack will defend any mounted attack, so your axemen/swordmen are still fresh for the attack.

Are there any units that can reduce collateral damage to the stack? That could be a handy addition to the game.

(Edited cos I'm an idiot.)

[Dis]

In the early game SOD's still rule. though maybe not so much on harder levels.

Once I knocked out their iron, the Celts couldn't build any spearmen, and my all immortal force wrecked havic with their empire. 4 cities down, empire destroyed. For some reason these guys wouldn't capitulate.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by MikeH
Trebuchets only have strength 4 on defense, you have a stack of only trebs and the AI will tear it apart before you get to their cities faster than they would a stack of cats.

You probably need a defensive unit or two with your trebuchets. But the AI doesn't really attack you as you're coming; worrying about a serious counterattack is unnecessary.