What aspect/feature of Civ4 do you like the least?

[rockhopper]

The AI.

I mean, I actually like and appreciate it...

But it sure does make for a lot of silly threads from the unclean masses of non-programmers around here.

[wattro]

things i like least

game experience has not been revolutionary making me think that each version of civ is little more than an upgrade/expansion

the ai still needs to cheat, the game mechanics have not really changed, the things that should have changed have not

/ducks
//core game mechanics are relatively the same throughout the entire Civ series...

[Stuie]

My least favorite thing as of this minute is Espionage; it's boring - needs more options.

[Cordelayne]

Urban Ranger, here is your own quote from the "ugh...savegame load time" thread: "That being said, Civ 4 is hardly a paragon of good programming. I haven't seen any computer frozen solid like that for a very, very long time." Truer words were never spoken.

Regarding requests for me to elaborate on my comments above, here is what I said yesterday in the "Civ4 and usability" thread:

"Yes, the game is clunky, sluggish, baggy. Everything is greatly slower than Civ3--slower unit movement, slower processing between turns, slower loads, slower saves, slower battles, slower feedback during production parts of turns. I hate the way the game lags so much at giving important notices while simultaneously reporting production for different cities. I hate the way the game lags so bad at displaying the city spreadsheet. I hate the way the game does a CTD so often when you switch from one adviser to the Top Cities screen. And on and on.

I think they're using software that is so complex, and has so many exposed variables, that the designers just don't know how to get things tuned right as to performance.

It's a great game. In terms of design and balance, I like it better than all the earlier ones (although I'll always have a soft spot for the diplomacy windows in Civ1 and the caravans in Civ2). But I hate the performance.

Threads like this always have several people who are just plain fanboys. Civilization is based on the model of moving tile graphics over two dimensions at a turn-based pace. The basic techniques were optimized 20 years ago. Some of the earliest turn-based tile graphics games, say Ultima 1, were running on less than 600 KILObytes of RAM, on computers going at 4.3MEGAhertz--and they were crisp and immediately responsive.

The problem here is NOT that this game is more complex or more sophisticated. The problem is that it's not programmed very well.

Again, the overall design is EXCELLENT. The programming so far is mediocre. I hope it will improve."

********But enough of this. I need to get back to my Civ4 game. Scots vs. Brits. And I'm winning again!

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Dis
air warfare and modern naval combat.

I also don't like the conquerer playstyle being nerfed. SMAC will always have the best balance of the 3 styles (conquerer, builder, hybrid).

I agree. This has to be the primary deficiency with Civ4. The religion aspect seems to be a major focus of the game now, while conquest has taken a back seat, not that it doesn't work, it's just that there are severe penalties for pursuing conquest. Maybe Firaxis was trying to reach out to a larger base? Of civilization buiders, not so much to conquerors?

All in all, I think it's a remarkable achievement, but needs a few tweaks to make it perfect. The religious aspect also needs more realism, such as discontent with multiple religions and organized or theocracy, that might balance the game.

Probably the penalty for number of cities should be lowered to allow more exansion to help boost conquest, or similar measures.

[johnmcd]

Space Race wins being too easy and the fact that the old Civ2 options of how many thrusters or whatever your wanted have been lost.

That the Barbarians don't found more cities more quickly.

[Finarfin]

That the game ends upon space ship launch instead of arrival on Alpha Centauri.

[John-SJ]

When I want to play a perfectionist game CIV is as good or better than any of its predecessors, or it would be if I could play the game rather than babying it so it doesn't crash or slow down to a crawl.

But, when I want to play warmonger CIV is very limited (IMO) and I would have to agree, no game has balanced builder/warmonger/hybrid better than SMAC.

[Raion]

Well, so far, computer users and their Ancient Computers and not knowing about computer in the first place -- and then players who assume Optimization of Graphics is something that does not take time -- and optimizing programs which takes testing software and tweaking the program -- as much as computer users -- do not tweak their computer. Before all of that Microsoft and their OS first!

And Civilization IV will continue to show you the faults of your assumption type thinking, and that also of that stupid OS on your computer!

Afterall of that then game play may be an individual preference - -and surely that will also change, once more tweaks to the game are done via patching the game to suit -- this real Civilization's need to play this game!

[FinnishGuy]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Define "abysmal performance." How slow is "abysmal?" How powerful is your computer?

For me, the game isn't all that slow.

Define "isn't all that slow".

[Kc7mxo]

Aside from having to make a few modifications when I got it (which was quite irritating at the time), I've had maybe three ctds since i got civ4. The game runs at about the same speed as I remember civ3 running last time i played it. I've certainly never had to get up to get a drink while I waited for the computer to think.

Probably just time for a new computer upgrade if you're having problems.

[Russian_King]

Nukes were underpowered in civ2. they were made even weaker in civ3. now they do 0 damage? COME ON????
nukes obliterate EVERYTHING!!! WHY does sid hate em so much? i'd love to mod it but that would render me not being able to play versus everyone

[Dis]

nukes don't actually obliterate everything. But it's safe to say it will obliterate any city centre. Only the suburbs would be spared (though not spared the fallout).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dis
nukes don't actually obliterate everything. But it's safe to say it will obliterate any city centre.

Yes, no, maybe.

It depends on the buildings at the city centre and the yield of the warhead.

If the buildings could withstand magnitude 7 earthquakes on the richter scale you need really, really, big nukes to knock them all down.

[Adagio]

What I don't like about the game:

1) How they calculate score. A game played on chieftain, duel sized map, with only one enemy and conquest victory is almost impossible to beat with other settings

2) The game options are not saved, so whenever I start a new game I have to check the same options again

3) No random # of enemies, and no random map size (even though it says so)

4) ... to be continued