IS it just me or does Civ4 become rather dull fast?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Penalizing a player for ICS? I thought that was a great tactic.

It seems that those that find it dull are those that don't like that they have to change their strategy and face interesting choices.

[Julinoleum]

My first game was boring, but the more I play, more interesting it gets. It's way better than Civ 3. It needs a few adjustments but in general its really really good.

[Sgt_Serge]

Folks... I've played CIV 1 for days during my military service, best tactical training I got there...

Of course I've played SMAC for ages - best CIV ever I think.

Then I bought CIV 3... AND IT S*CK*D! Actually I put it aside for a few months because I HATED IT! Then I took it out again, realized how many tweaks are in there and played it regularily until CIV 4 came out.

Now CIV 4 comes out... AND IT S*CKS! Because they changed the was resources are handled just slightly enough that my strategies don't work anymore. Trading has become really difficult, in the past when they hated me I threw over some ivory or so and they loved me. Now I throw 3 luxury goods against this guy who's just too much to be attacked and they are still "annoyed"! I say this s*ck*er has an attitude problem! They also changed the effect of borders and introduced a big downside when rush-building cities... I cried out loud when I went bankrupt after founding 4 new cities on prime property!


But this time I won't put it aside... unless my boss comes in, then... for a minute...

[VetLegion]

What happens when you go bankrupt? Can you run a deficit in Civ IV?

[Harovan]

You can run a gpt deficit as long as you have the money to cover it. If you can't, the game will automatically adjust your tax slider until you can. I didn't check yet the extreme (if your expenses are greater than your GNP and you don't have any money).

[spy14]

If your treasury goes into the red, units start getting disbanded.

[Solver]

One thing that always works for all sorts of games - taking a break. I regularly take a break from a game to come back to it later. Well, some games I only play once, or eventually stop playing, but for the long-term games, I make breaks. That includes Civ - sometimes I spend some time without Civ, and then coming back is pleasant.

[meel]

I agree that Civ 4 is lacking in fun compared to the older versions or other current games. For me, its mostly due to how they rushed through the older era's and slowed down production so much that its more like watching a chess match on TV than actually playing a fun game.

When I first played on Epic, I built my starting city, and go to make a warrior, and it says 23 turns to completion, I was pretty let down. When I finally got the unit built, it was nearly 2000 BC. So 2000 years of history down the drain and I have 1 frigging unit which I then have to fortify to protect my city. How fun!

Not doing anything except hit "Enter" for the first hour really is a turn off, and then the lack of units and subsequent high value of each unit makes war a real downer. Then before you've conquered anything, its the modern era and now you've got the same lame gameplay as earlier civs.

[Raion]

One has to get the Production up in Civ IV, and that is still by keeping the people happy, so production does not bog down. It is still there, just has to be done differently, so it is still all there.

Tweak that city map again because it can be!

I think some players are just looking at the game, and not really playing the game yet!

In the game, all that just appears to be hidden because again the Interface is better and everyone having trouble just was not applying the new Interface to play the game better!

That means that building a lighthouse taking 45 turns went down to 23 turns, and those little pop-up windows is where all the action (info) is!
Work the game map!

[Solver]

To be honest I'm quite surprised some feel that there's no fun action in Civ4. For me where the fun in Civ4 lies are decisions - there are many decisions to make that are in some ways a tradeoff, which I found not to be the case in Civ3. In Civ4, I'm doing stuff based on my decisions and not following a predefined strategy. At least that's what I like.

[Civfreak1970]

I believe if they gave us longer times in the different ERA's we would have alot more fun! It just sucks that we are rushed through and never really get a chnace to have long wars with the units we build because they are outdated ASAP! The game needs to slow down and lets us enjoy it over a longer period and stop rushing us so much!

Just me 2 cents!

I cant believe Im saying this but Im actually thinking of selling my copy! I love Civ but Civ4 is just missing that fun feeling!

[CiverDan]

Couple offhand comments:

Barb cities are too tough to take down.
Modern era is too short w/not enough modern units.

[polarnomad]

Granted, I only really played CivI and CtP, but it feels like CivIV actually increased the complexity. I find myself not being able to make decisions, because there are so many different directions to take. Then when I do finally go in one direction I find myself half regretting it a few hundred years down the line, but that is what makes me go back for another game.

The only time a game like this gets dull for me is when I've been playing for 10 hours straight, and I lose all sense of my civ's direction. I go into an unthinking automated mode and invariably fall behind. I get frustrated and start grumbling, "Dagnabbit! This is starting to get boring.... Yaddayaddayadda..." Then I realize that I have actually been playing for sooo long that it's no wonder I am unable to plan the next few moves properly. So, I've found that if I play in self-controlled sessions it keeps the game refreshing.

As for the complaints about it taking too long to build this and that... I think the problem is more with the player than the game. If it's taking you too long to build something then maybe the city isn't ready for it. ie: You haven't developed it properly.

[meel]

Nah, it takes too long to build everything, especially in the beginning eras. 23 turns to build the absolute weakest unit is just not right. It gets a bit better when you make a worker and have them chop down trees for shields, which really helps crank out settlers, but you'll run out of trees eventually.

The warfare system just took such a huge hit in this version that it makes the game less fun for many people. Having to use siege units to weaken enemy units really blows, since you'll lose most of your siege attacking 1 city, and if you want to attack another, you have to go back and make more siege units, and since it takes so long, its a vicious/boring circle. I think they had it right before, siege shouldn't be counter-attacked, they should be defenseless support units.

I just finished a "quick" noble game, and the last hour of the game was literally me doing nothing but hit "Enter" after picking what to build in cities. That's just not that much fun, its more like Sim City/Country than the old Civ's. Conquer the World? Don't think so.

[Raion]

I have read somewhere in the maze that an Epic game is 650 turns total so I fail to see where anyone thinks that the game is not longer. I admit there is the production problem, but it should be solvable. Perhaps the game still needs some balance issues or looking at the xml files perhaps!

When I first started building Warriors the length is long, but later it was only 8 turns. Perhaps there are still some gameplay issues.
???