YOUR REVIEW of Civ4

[SKIPICUS]

Is ther another patch coming out ??????????????

[Zydor]

There is a Major Memory issue in Civ IV. A User patch has been produced that really does work, is benign, does not touch game code, and has been very successfull

There is a Harkonnen thread on Apolyton

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145105

CivFanatics Thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=146309

(CivFanatics thread just had another 2,000 hits in the last 2 hours - it will go through the 34,000 mark in the next few minutes. This is in 4 days since it started)

He's very good at answering problems/questions but is somewhat under pressure due to the huge response so be kind folks

Regards
Zy

[Eric_Chan]

Civ IV is everything I hoped a Civ game could be.

Clean game play, addictive. And just plain fun.

The only criticism I have is that it feels a little rushed in some areas (damn you take 2!).

[Master Zen]

My review: Civ4 sucks.

The combat model is unrealistic, there's even less emphasis on the industrial-modern eras than in Civ3, the random maps created are quite lame, and I hate the fact that they made everything less grandiose than before. This is CIV for christ sakes, not Age of Empires.

Trust me, I've tried to like it, but I just can't, and get bored after just a few hours. :\

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Master Zen
My review: Civ4 sucks.

The combat model is unrealistic, there's even less emphasis on the industrial-modern eras than in Civ3, the random maps created are quite lame, and I hate the fact that they made everything less grandiose than before. This is CIV for christ sakes, not Age of Empires.

Trust me, I've tried to like it, but I just can't, and get bored after just a few hours. :\

Too bad you don't like it, MZ. I guess you won't be joining the 'Storm after all. Have you tried the patch?

Unrealistic combat never got in the way of a good Civ experience before, surely? Also, what do you mean by 'less grandiose'?

[Aro]

Originally posted by Master Zen
My review: Civ4 sucks.

I'm sorry.

Too bad, because is a really great game (well, IMHO). I'm enjoying a lot!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Too bad you don't like it, MZ. I guess you won't be joining the 'Storm after all. Have you tried the patch?

Unrealistic combat never got in the way of a good Civ experience before, surely? Also, what do you mean by 'less grandiose'?

Yes, I'm playing with the 1.52 patch and I still don't like it. And I've played it for the last three days for quite some time.

By less grandiose I mean that the scale of this game has been reduced back to Civ2 levels. I'm talking about map size, less units, and what really pissed me off, less industrial/modern techs. Civ4 seems to me as an attempt to make the game "lite" for the Age of Empires-loving consumer. Might work for MP, but for SP, I like my strategy games to be monstrous in scope, not necessarily because of needless micromanaging, but conquering an entire continent should not mean capturing 5 cities. That's just wrong.

What I also can't stand is the annoying clutter of a gazillion improvements and unnecessary graphics which makes every screen a morass of needless muddle. Is it necessary to clutter to screen with a granary graphic on a farm? Is it necessary to have those little sailboats everywhere? Cottages, windmills, quarrys, it all sounds nice to have a plethora of improvements, but in practice all I see is a graphic mess which totally spoil the otherwise gorgeous graphics. The game is a complete eyesore at all times except when you're looking at virgin land.

As for the combat model, there's a difference between simplistic and unrealistic. Simplistic means that you try to represent reality with as little complications as possible. Unrealistic means that the model and mechanics simply do not represent reality, and I feel that the Civ4 combat model is precisely that and that greatly detracts from my fun in this game. That is not to say the previous models were completely realistic, but the upgrade system just totally blows IMHO, and I say this with 10 years of REAL wargaming experience under my belt. It is not impossible to sacrifice realism for simplicity, some games have achieved it admirably (ever play Panzer General?) but Civ4 missed the mark by miles. To all those people who actually like the combat model I just have one question to ask: have any of you actually played a wargame? A REAL turn-based wargame? Sure, the Civ4 model might be challanging. But if I want something extremely challanging yet completely unrealistic, I'll go play chess, thank you.

Take for example the woodsman or city defender upgrade. Sh*t, infantry is by nature a better unit in a forest or jungle or city than a tank. You don't need to train it to make it better, it already is because a guy with a portable RPG hiding behind a tree or the rubble of a building is more likely to knock out a tank than in open terrain. That's what I find unrealistic. Some units are by nature better defenders than others which is why having a generic "strength" indicator is stupid IMO.

Overall I really see few improvements over Civ3 and they are totally overshadowed by the stuff I feel got worse. I like the new religion aspects as well as the civics. I also like the way unhappyness and health have been represented, its a definite improvement over the annoying civil disorders and polluted tiles. I also like how the eras are represented up to the industrial, after that it's really quite lame, this game seems to lose its purpose after you reach the industrial which is a shame since that's when things started getting fun in Civ1 and 2 (Civ3 also made the modern era and frequently the industrial totally irrelevant).

There's also the issue of bombardments and having artillery attack as units. Jeez christ what a great leap backward. If you're going to design a combat model based on tactics (which is what Civ4 is, despite its world-conquest scope, combat IS tactical, not strategic) then artillery should have indirect, not direct fire. And if you're basing the combat model on strategic terms (which most Civ4-combat fans always argue) then artillery should not be represented as formations in the first place since they are support units, not combat ones.

So I guess no, my demogaming career is pretty much over as I have no intentions to devote even a fraction of the time I spent on Civ3 on this one. I just don't find it fun anymore. Right now I'm on "vacation" (actually recovering from a minor surgery at my family's house) and I thought that playing Civ4 enough would make it grow on me. It hasn't and I am oh so lamenting the fact I didn't bring my SimCity 4 CDs with me.

I don't expect anyone to agree with my gripes. If you all loved Civ4, great. To me, however, it's been the biggest gaming disappointment in years. I have to admit thought that I also hated Civ3 when it came out. However, the problems in Civ3 seemed to be more an issue of game balance, stuff that could be corrected without changing the overall essense of the game. PTW did that for me. The stuff I detest in Civ4 however are not about game balance, it's stuff that a future expansion will unlikely address since they are intrinsic to the nature of this game...

... and also because I seem to be the 1% of the population which thinks this game is crap.

-MZ

[dacole]

Sounds like you wanted a war game which I agree this isn't and is much less of than Civ III. No I haven't played a "real" turn based wargame they never had an attraction for me to much number crunching. Also seems like you liked ICS which is a quick way to hate this game since it kills ICS (thankfully) very quickly. Have to say not sure why you don't like the graphics, I love the fact that the cities look real and you can see what is inside them.

Actually do you consider Rome Total War a "Real" turn based wargame? Did enjoy that though never got all that great at it..

[Aro]

Originally posted by Master Zen



... and also because I seem to be the 1% of the population which thinks this game is crap.

-MZ

Well, after the conversion of the "born again optimist" Yin, we need another pessimist resident. Someone have to do the dirty job, I suppose. And MZ actually wants the job...

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by dacole
Actually do you consider Rome Total War a "Real" turn based wargame? Did enjoy that though never got all that great at it..

Not really. It's a strategy game more than it is a wargame from what I've seen though I haven't played it.

"Real" wargames are ones like The Operational Art of War (best wargame EVER), Steel Panthers, Panzer General (highly simplified yet still a wargame) and the old SSI "classics" like Pacific War, War in Russia, etc.

A more recent example would be Korsun Pocket, which I haven't played but have heard rave reviews so I'll probably get it one of these days...

Admittedly the combat systems in most of these games are obscenely complicated for a Civ-style game, but I have always had faith that a Panzer General style model could be implemented as it is extremely realistic and simple too.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Aro


Well, after the conversion of the "born again optimist" Yin, we need another pessimist resident. Someone have to do the dirty job, I suppose. And MZ actually wants the job...

Fine. Call me the Civ4 grinch. I like the sound of it

[Aro]

[Cort Haus]

But surely you're not bringing wargame expectations to Civ, MZ? Civ has never had the remotest pretence of military realism. If anything, a drop of realism has been added with supply costs for the first time.

When in a moaning mood about Civ 3, I'd call it a wargame but only because it favoured warmongery, not because it was real wargame. Now the tables are turned to an extent, and while some conquest is usually needed for any kind of regular win at Monarch+, it's much more of a builders game. That's where the appeal is for me, I guess. City specialisation and national wonders = buildery fun.

In Civ 3 you could mow a strong industrial rival down in 1 turn (as we did in the PTWDG) with the correct punch and some good fortune. It took insane amounts of planning, but the bias was there for the attacker against the defender. The first thing to note about the Civ 4 model is that the defender now has it easier - both militarily and economically.

They fixed ICS, they fixed the bean-counting 'efficiency' MM by allowing overflow, they fixed the repetitive research routes by using OR gates, allowing build and research switching-and-returning. Worker techs add variety to the start, meaning an intended strategy will often not survive 4000BC. Diplo is far more interesting - leaders have more personality and trades are harder to come by. Grudges and friendships are much more part of the game now.

Less or more units is probably a matter of personal taste. While some players prefer more 'grandiose' quantities of units, others will be relieved to not have to push hundreds around every turn. I'd have thought this preference should ultimately be moddable.

[Cort Haus]

Oh, and you have to make some effort & sacrifice to get the needed commerce now - not just by spamming roads as-you-go like in Civ 3. This is one of the major changes, IMV.

[Tommar]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
But surely you're not bringing wargame expectations to Civ, MZ? Civ has never had the remotest pretence of military realism. If anything, a drop of realism has been added with supply costs for the first time.

When in a moaning mood about Civ 3, I'd call it a wargame but only because it favoured warmongery, not because it was real wargame. Now the tables are turned to an extent, and while some conquest is usually needed for any kind of regular win at Monarch+, it's much more of a builders game. That's where the appeal is for me, I guess. City specialisation and national wonders = buildery fun.

In Civ 3 you could mow a strong industrial rival down in 1 turn (as we did in the PTWDG) with the correct punch and some good fortune. It took insane amounts of planning, but the bias was there for the attacker against the defender. The first thing to note about the Civ 4 model is that the defender now has it easier - both militarily and economically.

They fixed ICS, they fixed the bean-counting 'efficiency' MM by allowing overflow, they fixed the repetitive research routes by using OR gates, allowing build and research switching-and-returning. Worker techs add variety to the start, meaning an intended strategy will often not survive 4000BC. Diplo is far more interesting - leaders have more personality and trades are harder to come by. Grudges and friendships are much more part of the game now.

Less or more units is probably a matter of personal taste. While some players prefer more 'grandiose' quantities of units, others will be relieved to not have to push hundreds around every turn. I'd have thought this preference should ultimately be moddable.

Less or more units? What does that have to do with anything?

I'm firmly in the builder camp, and hence find Civ4 more tolerable than Civ3.

But I infinitely prefer Alpha Centauri since it allowed both play styles flourish.