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

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by 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.

Ok, I'm nitpicking, but technically the warrior is the weakest, and I've never seen it at 23 turns... usually it starts at about 15 for me.

Most of the time I emphasize city growth immediately and just have it put what shields it can into something I know I will build later anyway (ie: barracks), then once I have 2 or 3 pop I switch around the tiles they work to emphasize production and also change city production to the unit/improvement I want (ie: archer).

Never had to chop any trees to get what I need, though I may try it. I like to keep the ones I don't NEED to chop for health reasons later on.

Originally posted by meel
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.

Well, I agree it's harder, but I don't agree with your statement about losing siege weapons. Bombard with your siege, then attack with your main forces. I never have actually attacked (other than bombarding) with my siege, so I rarely lose any.

Originally posted by meel
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.

I guess if you choose not to move any units, attempt any diplomacy etc... then hitting enter is boring, but that's your choice isn't it? Nobody is forcing you to not try a different tactic.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by 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.

Some people are playing at Epic speed, without having even tried Normal speed apparently, and then complaining that it took too long to build a warrior.

So... try Normal speed? Just a thought.


- Sirian

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Sirian

Some people are playing at Epic speed, without having even tried Normal speed apparently, and then complaining that it took too long to build a warrior.

So... try Normal speed? Just a thought.

- Sirian

Come to think of it, I've been playing on normal speed, so I guess that would be why I haven't felt production takes too long.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by meel
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.

The attached screenshot is me on Monarch, having crippled two civs and about to take the French capital, without having so much as built a SINGLE siege unit at any point yet in the game.

60% defense in the city? No problem. Not only did I only take three losses in the assault, but my surviving units promoted and I've got some seriously dangerous elite units going now! The French are in serious trouble.


- Sirian

[SSBLoveU]

I am still playing my first game. It is very interesting when you learn how to adjust all the settings. I would like to mod more things at the beginning of the game.

[Julinoleum]

I didnt like playing at epic game because of the build time issue, but at normal it is great. The tech goes a bit too fast but it is enjoyable. I dont really have problems with the building time, my first games sucked for this but my actual games are way better. You have to learn how to use your ressources and what you need to do first to gain building power. When your empire has less than 3 cities, it is really hard to get the production going, but when you go over this number, it goes smoothly. Still, I would have liked to see something like Rome Total War in which you can build building and units at the same time.

The diplomacy is actualy way better than Civ 3. The AI is less dumber but there is still a few issues in which they really hate you and there is nothing to do. But at least you can now see all the reasons why they hate you. It makes it easier to please them. Its also fun to see that you can no longer walk on other's land without authorization and that you dont have to rush to settle all the possible locations on the planet.

Im a bit sad that we cannot bombard with artillery to pillage enemy land. It was quite usefull in Civ 3. The good side is that you can get money of the pillage.

Making the mountains impassable is also a nice addition, it add a strategic value to the game.

It would be fun to have some better indication of when the other nations are about to build a wonder. It frustrated me often when I was building some wonders and they seem aware that I was about to complete mine and when it is supposed to be completed, it says that I can no longer build it. About 2 turns before completion.

Overall, I really love the game... it just need a few fixs, like every games.


Edit: Oh, another problem with the diplomacy. It seems that even when you are friendly to a nation, some proposition never work. It is rare that I can propose a pact or ask someone to go to war. Its always red.

[Julinoleum]

Originally posted by Sirian



The attached screenshot is me on Monarch, having crippled two civs and about to take the French capital, without having so much as built a SINGLE siege unit at any point yet in the game.

60% defense in the city? No problem. Not only did I only take three losses in the assault, but my surviving units promoted and I've got some seriously dangerous elite units going now! The French are in serious trouble.


- Sirian

I found that it is easier to take out the surrounding city without siege weapon, then to take the capital. It seems always harder to take the capital. At least thats what I experienced...

[Robert]

Maybe all those people who claim they've stopped playing civIII after 3 games can just stop having an opinion on that game?

It's fine with me if you dislike it, but please don't act like you know what you're talking about etc. civIII was and is a great game, I've played thousands of games, and it was a great pleasure.

and if civ4 = civ 3.5 then civ2 = civ1.01

[Julinoleum]

I played many games on Civ 3 but never finished any of them. It was always turning into a wait apocalypse. The game was so slow that I was becoming bored to wait for the next turn. It's weird because Civ 4 runs way better... I think Civ 3 diplomacy didnt work very well, you could rarely get the ressource you needed. So I think Civ 4 is a huge step foward and not just a big patch to Civ 3.

And I know that I have already 3 games finished since release. Its already 3 for Civ 4 against 0 for Civ 3

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by Sirian



The attached screenshot is me on Monarch, having crippled two civs and about to take the French capital, without having so much as built a SINGLE siege unit at any point yet in the game.

60% defense in the city? No problem. Not only did I only take three losses in the assault, but my surviving units promoted and I've got some seriously dangerous elite units going now! The French are in serious trouble.


- Sirian

Comon sirian.... we all know everyone gets a bonus when attacking the french. So no wonder you didn't need siege equipment

[Hozchelaga]

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

Hmm. If Civ 1 was the best tactical training you got during your military service, your country's armed forces might be a little vulnerable.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Julinoleum
I played many games on Civ 3 but never finished any of them. It was always turning into a wait apocalypse. The game was so slow that I was becoming bored to wait for the next turn. It's weird because Civ 4 runs way better... I think Civ 3 diplomacy didnt work very well, you could rarely get the ressource you needed. So I think Civ 4 is a huge step foward and not just a big patch to Civ 3.

And I know that I have already 3 games finished since release. Its already 3 for Civ 4 against 0 for Civ 3

civ3 was such a game that gave you quality time to do things between the turns

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by CyberShy


civ3 was such a game that gave you quality time to do things between the turns

With a sharp eye to see when the computer was finally ready to show some AI moves...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Senethro
I think its time for multiplayer. You've reached the limited lifespan that AI opponents provide.

As everyone in the know predicted the AI blows and the only thing interesting is MP. Unfortunately, MP is currently buggy with out of syncs and lag the rule of the day. I doubt patches can meaningfully fix this (well ,aybe the out of syncs but not the lag).

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Oerdin


As everyone in the know predicted the AI blows

'everyone in the know' being....?