YOUR REVIEW of Civ4

[Master Zen]

Yes I am bringing wargame expectations to Civ because warfare is an intrinsic part of the game and has been since Civ1. I do expect a Civ game to include as simplistic a combat system as possible since it isn't a wargame, yet I expect that system to be at least remotely representative of reality.

Sending suicide stacks of artillery to soften up a defenders stack before striking with your main force is utterly ridiculous and that's the type of unrealism which I have to deal with in cIV.

To me the warfare aspect is essencial to my enjoyment of Civ. Make the wars suck, and my interest in Civ reduces itself to zero. My interest in Civ3 after the PTWDG Lego War waned considerably. I did not return to my old PBEMs which I left after living in Europe for a couple of months because I had no interest whatsoever in them anymore. I vowed to play "one last SP game" and didn't even end up half-through because I got bored. It totally blew it for me, the difference being now that cIV blew it for me from the start, not two years, 3 demogames and 20 PBEMs later.

I don't expect you to share my cIV gripes at all. The reasons I detest cIV are very personal and they involve the reasons I loved the series since Civ1. I'm simply not interested in a "different Civ experience", I want each new Civ game to make me feel what I felt when playing Civ1 or 2 or 3 at times. IV doesn't, it doesn't feel right for me. It feels like a turn-based Rise of Nations wannabee, not the massive days/weeks/months long civ games which I used to enjoy before.

Using a junky analogy, I'm a cocaine addict who is suddenly forced to use heroin instead because supposedly the rush is better. Sorry, not interested. I want my old rush back.

.MZ

[smithldoo]

Master Zen,

I have been watching and refraining to say much as I have already stirred the Civ Fanatics with my criticisms of Civ series and Civ 4 in particular.

I am an avid reader of history and I too am an ex wargamer and think the 1 v 1 combat system that Civ persists with is pathetic and an insult to my intelligence. Obviously most civers have little of that and are, therefore, not insulted.

The argument that "this is civ and never pretends to have a realistic combat model" is stupid and I reject out of Hand. The name itself suggests some sort of historical parralel and the opening trailers for Civ 3(Conquests) and Civ 4 have an obvious and distinct military theme.

You are right in that war has been the biggest single pass time of man (unfortunately) and by now there is simply no logic to retaining the unrealistic 1 v 1 combat model. No matter how much it has been tweaked and played with.

Go back 6 years ago and the Call to Power series introduced stack combat with different attacking abilities for units. It was fairly simple, easy to manage and fairly realistic in its outcomes. One of the few things in an otherwise mediocre game that was not finished before release. However, at least it did play on the system described in the specs (unlike Civ 4).

The Ages of Man:

http://www.theagesofman.net/

Has taken that combat model much further. A complete range of units for each era together with logistics and the ability to conduct sieges makes the combat model in Civ 4 look exactly like what it is, a 50 yr old idea (taken out of RISK) and tweaked repeatedly but no more realistic than in the original game.

I would have played Civ 3 and 4 (if it would work properly on my system) for much longer except for this one huge stupidity. After playing Ages of Man I could not stand to watch single enemy units wandering round and plundering while my only option was a 1 v 1 attack, even though I had manouvered plenty of superiority to face them. One completed game of Civ 4 was more than enough, I was absolutely bored @#@@less with the movement and combat. Simply went back to SOD.

In AOM there is room to manouvere and I have had successful wars where I invaded an enemy in force from one direction, waited a few turns then sent a second force from another and was able to do a lot of damage as the main enemy force and gone to meet my main attack.

Yes Civers, "manouvere" and "use superior numbers", the most basic things from the earliest military text books, totally absent from Civ 4.

[Krill]

Each to their own, but I feel that I ought to point out that having massive stacks of artillery obiliterate the majority of the hp in an army, and send in the units to kill the SoD without loss is incredably gamey itself.

the whole idea of artillery in the civ series needs to be sorted out. In Civ3 artillery broke warfare because you could win wars without risk. Atleast now you have the risk.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Krill
Each to their own, but I feel that I ought to point out that having massive stacks of artillery obiliterate the majority of the hp in an army, and send in the units to kill the SoD without loss is incredably gamey itself.

Yet any military buff knows that such a thing is actually more real than sending artillery formations out on the field to fight with the enemy as what happens in Civ1/2/4. The problem is that artillery attacks were indiscriminate regarding the enemy. In real life armored formations have little to fear from artillery, and most earlier mobile units (mainly horse-based) also suffer less. Artillery is good against slow-moving soft targets like infantry, but against anything else is sort of useless. Civ3 did not represent that as an artillery attack against tanks was just as devastating as against infantry.

I agree in many respects with smithldoo's assessment on the nature of Civ's combat model flaws. 1 vs 1 battles is extremely unrealistic yet I have my doubts whether a stacked unit system is the panacea (at least the one in CtP sucked) though it probably is ideal for all pre-industrial warfare scenarios when multiple units crowded the same battlefield. With the advent of operational warfare this becomes less important as the battlefield expands considerably in the geographical sense so another solution might be devised. It really is not easy to think of a perfect system as the ones which work for, say, WW2 wargames might not work for pre-industrial warfare.

To me, the essense of the problem is unlimited stacking. There should be a limit to the number of troops available in one single tile or else suffer extreme penalties for the more amount of troops you concentrate. The problem with Civ, however, is that one of the 4 cornerstones of military planning is entirely absent: logistics (the others being tactics, operations and strategy). Surrounding a stack, outflanking it, cornering it, etc. is entirely irrelevant because the stack still fights without loss. Thus, Civ warfare still boils down to a slug-fest between opposing stacks. Sure, there might be more incentive of using combined arms than in Civ3 yet even though the tactics have changed, the essense of operations and strategy has remained entirely the same. Ironically, Civ1 and 2 did not have that problem thanks to the fact that a stack was totally destroyed if just one unit was lost. As you can see has been the case throught the history of Civ, the solution to one problem ended up causing an equally big problem in its wake and the result is that the system, though changed, is equally flawed albeit by entirely different reasons.

My second main gripe in the combat system is the "fight-until-one-dies" concept. Even in Risk attacks could be broken off when it seemed you were not getting the upper hand and most wargames represent this fact by having units (ANY unit, not just mobile as in Civ3/4) retreat under certain conditions. This usually ties into the concept of logistics. Cut-off units lose supply, lose moral, Panzer General had an interesting and simple concept called suppression which was more or less a unit's ability to fight back. Combat (as well as other factors as weather and supply) would reduce all of this and force a unit to fall back. From history one learns an obvious and inescapable fact: ALL armies which have been able and willing to fall back and regroup to fight again have done so even when the chances of winning the current engagement have dwindled to zero. This is why the fight-until-one-dies concept is one of the things that should be overhauled completely. It was ok in Civ1. It was passable in Civ2. But it was totally irrelevant in 3 and 4.

I'll probably go on and on later... who knows, maybe after all this *****ing and moaning Firaxis will hire me as their combat system advisor for Civ5

In the meantime, for anyone who thinks the Civ4 combat system is decent, let alone good: read history. play wargames. Then come back and play Civ4 and you'll see how out of touch from reality it is.

[pedrojedi]

Well, I played People's General and the first Panzer General. I still like Civ IV, a lot more after the 1.52 patch. I think it's because I like to build. I like the combat too, but I'm kinda a wuss at that point (meaning: if I don't get the intended result in a particularly important battle, I reload and plan again, instead of just dealing with the consequences).

I have a particular view of Civ series, which is that the combat system is fated to be "broken", "unrealistic", "simplistic" and "outrageous". But, considering the scope of the battles (each tile should "realistically" have at least hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands), I believe that the icon representing the units are okay, and that the artillery are not just a lot of cannons pointing to a specific point, but a majority of cannons with troops and some infantry and cavalry. The armored units are not just a lot of tanks, but tanks, soldiers on foot, some light artillery, some infantry, the eventual heli. And so on...

But one thing is true (for me): those bombardment rules of Civ III were a pain in the a$$, specially when I had a stack of 10+ cannons, each pressing Shift+B, click, next...

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Master Zen

In the meantime, for anyone who thinks the Civ4 combat system is decent, let alone good: read history. play wargames. Then come back and play Civ4 and you'll see how out of touch from reality it is.

Just because you prefer wargames does not mean that everyone does. I don't play games for reality. I play games to escape from it.

I prefer to build.

However, Civ4 is flawed for builders, too. The key to winning so far has been to have a good standing army (top 3, I'm safe, nobody will mess with me). OK, I can do that, but it's not as much fun as trying to find a safe corner where I can build unnoticed. Civ4 pretty much doesn't allow that.

Sounds like they messed it up for both extremes, in preference for a more well-rounded approach to be the winning key.

Civ3 and Civ4 have both been huge disappointments for me too. I much prefer Alpha Centauri, even though the NPCs will harass me based upon my game score, regardless of my military power. Alpha Centauri did a much better job at allowing all play-styles to flourish instead of forcing us extremists into something more balanced.

I really miss the Workshop, even though I'm a builder. Being able to completely customize your units was wonderful, even for a builder. But I remember all the whining from players who found it too hard.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Tommar


Just because you prefer wargames does not mean that everyone does. I don't play games for reality. I play games to escape from it.

I said from the start that the reason I disliked Civ4 were very personal and I did not expect everyone to share them. If the combat system or everything else in Civ4 is satisfactory to others, great, but it isn't for me and if this is the direction that the Civ-series is planning on taking from now on I think I'll be taking my gaming addictions elsewhere.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I said from the start that the reason I disliked Civ4 were very personal and I did not expect everyone to share them. If the combat system or everything else in Civ4 is satisfactory to others, great, but it isn't for me and if this is the direction that the Civ-series is planning on taking from now on I think I'll be taking my gaming addictions elsewhere.

A classy response to this issue - after all, for some players, combat is a very important issue and the model in civ4 is very abstract and simplistic in comparison to other games. For others, the combat model in civ4 is not a gamebreaker.

After all, it is only a game

Unlike this classless, condescending piece of tripe that is little more than an arrogant cheap shot against anyone who dares to enjoy civ4...

What a sad, pathetic person...

Originally posted by smithadoo
I am an avid reader of history and I too am an ex wargamer and think the 1 v 1 combat system that Civ persists with is pathetic and an insult to my intelligence. Obviously most civers have little of that and are, therefore, not insulted.

[fed1943]

I love civ4,as I did smac.True,they are not battlegames,that wasn´t their goal.I said battlegame,not wargame,because battles and wars are different things(as shown by Napoleon and Hitler defeats).Battles are the domain of military,the four cornerstones Master Zen spoke about,plus the previous learning/training from the soldier to the supreme field commander; IMO,there are some reasonable battlegames,Talonsoft,Interactive,SSI,plus one or two.
Wars are a global thing,or global project,and I guess computers,designers,programmers are not able yet to produce a viable wargame.
Best regards,

[nllsq]

Oh, Call to Power had some nice elements in it and I would LOVE to see a CIV game incorporating them.

1. Armies of more than one unit to attack together - Thuis was SOOO cool. With a nice archer-warrior srtack one could start his march towards a win at the highet level of difficulry without having to spend monthes of studying the game.

2. Slavery: Oh yes! To have a city of size 30 in the middle of the Classic Era. It was great to harvest population from enemy troops. It would be even better if one could convert the slaves to citizens even in anciet times as this was sometimes a historical practice.

3. Future ages, units and techs. Why not! Even though some were quite stupid, such as the ecotopia and the eco-terrorist.


What I love in CIV:

1. No corruption anymore! - The reason I did not like Civ III was theat I was unable ti build anything in a town two screens away form the capitol. The higher cost in CIV is much better solution.

2. Reduced wonder importance.

3. Units respond in the native tongue. it is so cool to know languages

4. No limit on science and number of cities from the beginning.

[SSBLoveU]

I thought the art of long time war was very interesting in CIV III. The overwhelming issue of CIV IV is with diplomacy, and the swiftness of the game. So, if you know what is good for you, then stop playing the old game to play the new game (becomes the attitude of the AI in the game). Playing with other people might be a different story. I still feel like a Deity out of touch with my people in the game (I.E. where is the SIMS?).

Cultrual Transmission is missing
Intelligence by SSB LoveU, March 2006
1. ~1/3 genetics
2. ~1/3 personal life experience
3. ~1/3 cultural transmission

Genetics [Individual]
1. Migration
2. Mutation
3. Natural Selection
4. Genetic Drift

Personal Life Experience
[Personal, Social]
1. Home
2. Neighborhood
3. Community (school, church, playground)
4. Environmental & Geographic Region
5. Nation and World

[Individual, Personal]
1. Entertainment
2. Hobby
3. Work
4. Diet
5. Travel & Visitation

Cultural Transmission
Vertical (Biological or Social Relationship)
[Individual*, Personal*, Social*, Public, Worldly]
Direct
1. Husband & Wife, Parent & Child
2. Grandparents, Relatives, and Friends

Indirect
1. Public Figures
2. Teachers, Authors, Entertainers

Horizontal (No Clear-Cut Biological or Social Relationship)
[Public, Worldly]
1. Cultural Diffusion (Geographic, Social, Economical Barriers)
a. Oblique Transmission (older generation than receiver)
b. Cultural Epidemic (transmission with minimal contact)
2. Ethnographic Data (egalitarian society and size, stratified social classes)
3. Authoritarian Chief Influence and Government
4. Inverse Mechanism (Homogenize Groups, several transmitters to one receiver ------reference: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, ISBN: 0-520-22873-1

[Gunter]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Yes I am bringing wargame expectations to Civ because warfare is an intrinsic part of the game and has been since Civ1. I do expect a Civ game to include as simplistic a combat system as possible since it isn't a wargame, yet I expect that system to be at least remotely representative of reality.

Sending suicide stacks of artillery to soften up a defenders stack before striking with your main force is utterly ridiculous and that's the type of unrealism which I have to deal with in cIV.

To me the warfare aspect is essencial to my enjoyment of Civ. Make the wars suck, and my interest in Civ reduces itself to zero. My interest in Civ3 after the PTWDG Lego War waned considerably. I did not return to my old PBEMs which I left after living in Europe for a couple of months because I had no interest whatsoever in them anymore. I vowed to play "one last SP game" and didn't even end up half-through because I got bored. It totally blew it for me, the difference being now that cIV blew it for me from the start, not two years, 3 demogames and 20 PBEMs later.

I don't expect you to share my cIV gripes at all. The reasons I detest cIV are very personal and they involve the reasons I loved the series since Civ1. I'm simply not interested in a "different Civ experience", I want each new Civ game to make me feel what I felt when playing Civ1 or 2 or 3 at times. IV doesn't, it doesn't feel right for me. It feels like a turn-based Rise of Nations wannabee, not the massive days/weeks/months long civ games which I used to enjoy before.

Using a junky analogy, I'm a cocaine addict who is suddenly forced to use heroin instead because supposedly the rush is better. Sorry, not interested. I want my old rush back.

.MZ

I agree, I fully and totally agree and I exposed the same ideas in my boozoo way on another recent thread.

Excellent even the cocaine analogy.

Hey Zen, we are close, luckily I avoided to buy it cause I smelt it in advance....

Cheers mate

Gunter

[Master Zen]

Glad to see I'm not a lone wolf in this...

[SystemError]

I have to agree with the anti-civ4 rants.

I had Civ Net and loved it. I had civ2 and played it for years. Civ3 at first i didnt like, it felt like such a shoddy upgrade of 2. It felt rushed. It wasnt until the scenarios that i really began to appreciate it.

And now civ4. Its like a step sideways! Wheres the progress? It seems to child like now. I know civ isnt a simulation of reality but it could be more realistic without becoming boring or impossibly complex!

I play Europa Universalis2 and its such a simple to play but incredibly complex game.

Major points that irritate me:

-Artillery has gone back to pre-civ3 style. Rubbish.
-Resources are still infinite. one resource unit should supply enough of that for so many product units(i.e. 100 units of iron, allowing you to build 10 swordsmen if they cost 10 iron each). Or something like that.
-Food. How early on did civs start shipping food about? The Egyptians built cities in the desert with no farmland near and supplied them. Food should be empire wide if there are roads!
-Again theres so few scenarios. Why?
-Why cant all the civs have their own style units and multiple unique units? one for each age?
-Why cant you get access to techs anymore?
-If youve conquered an entire people, why couldnt you build their special unit in thei old cities?
-Why no civil wars? It might be bloody annoying to see your empire fly apart but id love to fight a civil war! They were so cool in civ2 when you took an enemy capital and caused an internal war...

Thats most of what i can think of...

I wish i had the time to build my own mod. Anyone know of any good ones?

[fed1943]

Not important,but old Egyptians didn't build cities in the desert;they built cities in places that nowdays are desert.
Best regards,