Civ4 = Flash Civ

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Krill
To be fair, I started a game on a large map, on Noble, to tune up my builderish skills.

I only just discovered music after about 10 hours of playing. I have a lot further to go, though I would put that down to the fact that I have not traded for a single tech, as the only AI I know is a weakling, and I just declared war on for a bit more land to use...

...and this is on Quick speed.

Too bad I cannot play on large maps, because the game is already so slow on regular maps that I barely can play the modern ages. I should also add that civ4 is the only application I use where actually before starting it I have to close all but the vital running Windows services.

My last game on a regular map, on Noble, with lots of fighting, lasted 7 hours or so. 7 hours pure playing time with another hour or more "waiting between the turns" time. At one particular moment, when I traded my world map for the very first time and got the complete world map, I waited probably 15 minutes and I was close to reset my PC because it was not responding anymore to any command.

[Krill]

So...You are complaining about what firaxis created, with regard to the gameplay, when you don't have the ability to play on the settings which Firaxis have added to the game. Would it not be fairer to state that you find the settings that you have played to be lacklustre, instead of saying that Firaxis sold you up the river, when you have not played the entire game?

OK, so it may be that the graphics is the problem holding the system back, that is a fair point. But it is not fair, or honest, to state that Firaxis have done something"bad" without investigating all of the evidence, or in this case the entire game.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Krill
Tibby, better to have balanced wonders that won't break the game than to have overpowered ones.

Like I said, I understand the reason to make wonders more balanced. However, they just don't feel ...great anymore. As you may have noticed, I am one of those who stupidly love the game atmosphere just as much as game balance. The problem is that I don't feel any satisfaction anymore for building a wonder, which should be the supreme accomplishment for a builder.

I couldn't agree more on PBEM though.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Krill
So...You are complaining about what firaxis created, with regard to the gameplay, when you don't have the ability to play on the settings which Firaxis have added to the game. Would it not be fairer to state that you find the settings that you have played to be lacklustre, instead of saying that Firaxis sold you up the river, when you have not played the entire game?

I am only talking about the default settings, because this is how I play the game, and this is how I always played it. In my understanding, when someone makes a poll and asks a general question, it refers to the default options.

I wish I could try a large map, maybe it's different. Until then I hold my opinion that on a regular map, with default settings, a normal game (not epic) is too short.

I've been playing civ games with the same settings for 10 years and the've never been so short.

Isn't that true that they reduced the number of turns compared to civ3? I think I've read this somewhere.

[Krill]

Ah, my misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about the entire game...

yeah, it was reduced to about 430 turns, though I thought it was possible to play on...

..and if you check the OP, you will see that Lzprst did not use a standard game as a base for the thread...

I started a normal continents game on noble with 6 opponents.

There are a variety of maps that can be played in the standard game. Pangea is good for a warmongers game, and it is better if you add the extra player in. It means more cities to take in the long run, a better chance that an AI starts near to you, another AI to trade with...And another AI to think about killing.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Krill
yeah, it was reduced to about 430 turns, though I thought it was possible to play on...

Maybe you can play on, I don't know, because my games end almost always before the deadline. Around 1950 the AI starts building the spaceship and from there on it's just a rush who builds it first. It's usually me, but yesterdayit was Saladin. I had a long war with the japanese and the tech gap became so great that I wasn't possible to catch on.

More importantly, I think the game not only ends after 430 turns, but the whole gamepace and gameplay is tweaked to end after 430 turns.

..and if you check the OP, you will see that Lzprst did not use a standard game as a base for the thread...

I started a normal continents game on noble with 6 opponents.

There are a variety of maps that can be played in the standard game. Pangea is good for a warmongers game, and it is better if you add the extra player in. It means more cities to take in the long run, a better chance that an AI starts near to you, another AI to trade with...And another AI to think about killing.

This is how I play too; continents, noble, 6 opponets. I wasn't aware that this is not the standard game. What is the standard game ?

Anyway, you think the game is not too fast; that's fine. We may perceive it differently. However, when I said that Firaxis has made the game with RTS customers in mind I wasn't refering only to the game speed. There are other signs as well: the interface changes, the right click to move units, the icons used for buildings in the city (I hate them; I wish someone made a mod as soon as possible to replace them with text lists), the "let's put eveything on the map" stuff, and there are other signs as well. Please excuse me, I am at work and have no time to think over the whole game.

I think the game is awesome, but could have been much better if done to please turn based players, not RTS players. IMHO.

[Krill]

/me slams head into wall...

Sorry, forgot player + 6 opponents = 7 players. I'm using radians for some Homework atm, and it is screwing up normal maths skills...

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Tiberius
However, when I said that Firaxis has made the game with RTS customers in mind I wasn't refering only to the game speed. There are other signs as well: the interface changes, the right click to move units, the icons used for buildings in the city (I hate them; I wish someone made a mod as soon as possible to replace them with text lists), the "let's put eveything on the map" stuff

Yeah seriously... Right click to move, wtf is up with that?! That was the first thing I disabled.

[SirSebastian]

I think it's a bit of a mistake to think that the "speed" of gameplay was a decision primarily made to get RTSers to play.

I believe that two other significant design motives may account for this. The first is that a lot of micromanagement has been taken out. This is a good thing - except for that automated workers search and destroy forests. In my opinion, this makes each hour playing civ more fun, and more interesting. Not because it's somehow better, but because I feel that more of those hours are actually spent playing. The game itself may not take as long... but then, why should it take long? There is no inherent good in dragging something out that doesn't need to be. I do sympathize with those who get overly attached to the "ages" and units and such... but I am a slow player by nature and you might just take some more time to think about what you want to do with your turn, rather than just move your units and click next turn. So, if you like that "epic" feel, just approach civ 4 contemplatively instead of waiting for the computer to present you with decisions that it thinks you should make and then ending your turn. Do not play a computer-directed game of civ!

Secondly, I don't think we should forget that some of this gameplay is a result of the designers playing multiplayer games against eachother. Don't be so quick to say, "Oh, but most people play single player!" It is a false dichotomy that the quality of a game's single- and multi-player experiences are in opposition to eachother. In fact, I believe that I have a lot more fun playing single-player games because of the enhancements to overall gameplay as a result of civ 4 being multiplayer-friendly. The side-effect that strategies have a little bit more than usual crossover between multi-player and single-player games, is just icing on the cake.

[Mace]

Yes I feel the game is too fast. Or something is not quite right with the pace vs. production. Units do go obsolete before you have a chance to build very many of them. I'm not quite sure what the problem is yet...seems to be the same problem on epic or regular.

I thought maybe it was something with my gameplay (me not emphasizing shields (oops, I mean hammers ) enough, but no, something is not quite right. An epic game should be, well, epic...

dearmad is probably on the right track with his mod. That's similar to what I did with Civ3.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Mace An epic game should be, well, epic...

We need EPIC.

It's hard to put my finger on exactly what needs to be done. I love the game, just needs to be tweaked a bit. Several things may affect this. It doesn't necessarily need more turns either.

Much of the AI seems too friendly, it doesn't fight with itself often enough, therefore having too much free time to research and trade tech, which accelerates the game. A world at war slows down tech, giving one chance to build units and engage in extensive battles, where the human can outwit the AI. Maybe that is up to the human though, to scheme of ways to make the AI fight, by diplomacy and pacts, but it's harder to form them now, so that is where much learning needs to occur.

Maybe part of this is the attempt to eliminate rexing. The early land grab can result in paying the penalty of having a backward Civ when you're ready to resume your building and growth. So, another way to balance this would be to lessen the penalties for number of cities to allow an early acquisition.

As it is, Civ4 seems to require more focus on building and culture, leaving not enough for a battle game, though this is surely level sensitive. Or maybe it is just the game learning curve.


ON EDIT: I got a few diplomacy breaks in my present game that should allow an opening for some good battle time. monarch/standard/pangea/epic/alexander.

Cyrus who is even with me, with strong mlitary and science, offered a defensive pact as everyone has just discovered or about to discover Industrialism (tanks) in 1702AD. I accepted.

So I checked Caesar and he will go to war with three civs for a few techs. So my opening has finally arrived. This game is a horse race with everyone pretty close, so there needs to be a world war now.

So what I was refering to as AI being too peaceful, should be modified by adding that it's up to the human player to make them be at war more often.

[Krill]

has anyone tried going to war with fewer units at all? You are not going to be getting the collosal SoDs that existed in Civ3 anymore, and can easily wage war with 10 units total, or so...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Krill
has anyone tried going to war with fewer units at all? You are not going to be getting the collosal SoDs that existed in Civ3 anymore, and can easily wage war with 10 units total, or so...

I often only have about 10 units to go to war WITH, so yes, I have gone to war with fewer units.

It really makes you think about tactics and matchups when you have few units to work with. You really have to fight the war properly or you'll end up with your army annihilated and your empire defenseless.

[LzPrst]

problem with a normal game on a normal map, if you're fighting a neighbour it will usually work out well tech-wise. However, if you decide to expand at the expense of a civ thats across an ocean, by the time your troops get there they will be obsolete. whatever happened to colonial powers and great empires? they have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow (spot the quote)

anyway, I dont mind allowing for shorter games in multiplayer, but I want the possibility to enjoy singleplayer. thats what I thought epic mode was all about, but it turns out its just more turns of nothing...

also, there are no interesting additions such as resource management, internal unrest or trading. which IMO makes the game just ANOTHER refinement of civ1. give me a true sequel, one that appeals to my fun senses and stimulates my strategic brain center.

[marvinkosh]

I have to agree that the AI isn't ambitious enough to try and wipe out all its rivals. And they're rather quick to make peace when they could simply (as us humans do) reject a ceasefire and fight on until their opponents' cities are burnt-out cinders.