I don't feel the game...

[Handel]

I am an old Civ player. I played a lot the Civ I and I liked it, (especially when my spearmen was killing enemy bombers); I played a lot the Civ II and liked it - and especially liked the combat system. It was the best combat system from all the 4 games. And I played a lot the Civ III and liked it - especially when after the first addon it became playble at last
But now I don't feel this Civ IV... Because it is too much luck dependant. Why this?
Let's start with the terrain. There were tundra, deserts, snow and mountains in the previous games, but nevertheless there were enough terrains to play normally. But in this game you often have just a place for a town and a half. What you can do? Even the techs don't help, so you must start from the very beginning...
The resourses - before you expanded quickly and you usually could get all the needed strategic resourses. And you could always find a good enough trade to purchase somthing if you don't have it. But now getting a resourse if a matter of luck. And the AI rarely trades it.
Speaking of AI - I guess there are some 14 years from the first Civ - but AI didn't get better at all. Instead the awful AI is compensated with VERY VERY HUGE bonuses. What do I mean? And it get them even at the noble level, which should be fair level if we have to beleive to the devs. And already on the next level the AI get not just "huge", but "tremendous huge bonuses". Just to mention for the measly 8 turns of a Golden Age, it usually researches 5-6 techs (talking about prince level). Not to mention the raging barbarians attacking only human player and such...
Starting techs and traits. Obviously some of the starting traits are very unbalanced. And they are compensated by giving better starting techs. Like spiritual and mysticism, giving the possibility to grab the early religion. This way there is no reason to go for the later religions and can spend the research for something usefull. Not to mention the possibility to earn very early in the game relatively big money, to befriend and to spy all the nearby civs. Luckily the AI grabs the religions, but doesn't look actively to benefit from it.
So if you want to start with certain nation/leader you are sentenced to research the same over and over again wihtout a chance for something better. And besides why this? Someone knows mining and someone knows mysticism and someone knows wheel and someone knows farming... The great secrets - how to bury some potatoes in the soil...
The space race, the diplomatic and the culture victory are becoming more and more politicaly correct and more and more stupid. Why? About the space race - read somewhere in the forum the topic "because of my ally I lost the space race". But this is not the most important - more important is the game ends for the AI when it starts to "smell" the space race. The AI stops any play except building feverishly the space parts. And the player must do the same if don't want to lose already won game.
The diplomatic victory? Most stupid and annoyng thing, including the laughable UN wonder. No wonder most players swith it off agter the first game.
The culture victory? Again politicaly correct game killer! Why? Read the forum for the ways to win culture victory. I don't think putting the slider to produce culture only turn after turn and pray to win before the AI has something in common with the enjoyable gameplay.
And not to mention the culture doesn't win in the human history, but quite the opposite - the most cultured nations easily perish from the barbaric warmongers...
Let's proceed with the diplomacy... Obviously the devs tried to make the AI diplomacy more "dumbproof" putting those red flags on the different trades. But there is no diplomacy AI at all. So the AI don't attack his most dangerous enemies, don't trade the resourses it needs, makes stupid demands and gives away tributes which no one asked from them. Instead you can manipulate it as you like just because you are friendly with them (which often means because you grabbed an early religion and the AI took the religion from you)

Probably there are other things too, but that's all from now. I played a lot this game and probably will play it a lot more, but... as I said I don't feel it and frankly I like it less then all the previous Civ games.

[Shogun Gunner]

Perhaps this game will be improved in your eyes after an interim sequel release (like PTW or Conquests for Civ3) You mentioned that saved civ3 for you.

[Dis]

yeah perhaps some of those issues can be addressed. A lot of them are balancing issues or victory issues.

I feel the game has balancing issues myself. It's a fun builder game. But I just don't feel the conquerer style of play with this game.

[Enigma_Nova]

Re: I don't feel the game...

Originally posted by Handel
A Big fall wall of text

[Handel]

Ah, and something more - the lack of real randomization of the starting civs. I play on custom with Qin and I always get Tupac behind my back (even if there is very small place available) and Caesar and Isabella before me with Saladin and Napoleon right after them.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Re: I don't feel the game...

I'm sure someone will holler "Defensive fanboy" for daring to discuss and refute some of these remarks, but I'll stand up anyhow, because some of this is factually incorrect, whether or not I agree with the opinions.

Originally posted by Handel
I am an old Civ player. I played a lot the Civ I and I liked it, (especially when my spearmen was killing enemy bombers); I played a lot the Civ II and liked it - and especially liked the combat system. It was the best combat system from all the 4 games.

And yet the number of people who complained about this very same problem (losses in the face of ridiculous odds) are staggering. Heck, even as the problem only becomes a matter of finer and finer detail and opinion people still complain about it. I'm curious - did you find it fun and like it when it was YOUR bombers being killed by enemy spears?

Originally posted by Handel
And I played a lot the Civ III and liked it - especially when after the first addon it became playble at last
But now I don't feel this Civ IV... Because it is too much luck dependant. Why this?
Let's start with the terrain. There were tundra, deserts, snow and mountains in the previous games, but nevertheless there were enough terrains to play normally. But in this game you often have just a place for a town and a half. What you can do? Even the techs don't help, so you must start from the very beginning...
The resourses - before you expanded quickly and you usually could get all the needed strategic resourses. And you could always find a good enough trade to purchase somthing if you don't have it. But now getting a resourse if a matter of luck. And the AI rarely trades it.

Terrains in CIV: Peak, Hill, Grass, Plain, Desert, Tundra, Ice. With or without forest and jungle flavoring. The amount of each can be easily altered within the setup menu of a game. If you aren't starting with enough land, perhaps you should examine the map you are playing on. Getting a resource was a matter of luck then, too; in fact, there are more of each type of resource in CIV than any previous game. Consider: C3C had horses and iron in the early game. Now, you have horses, copper, iron, and ivory. Exactly how are you worse off?

The AI doesn't instantly give up its valuable resources whenever you want them, no. Sometimes, it's smart enough to realize that what it has is something you are desperate to get...and therefore, won't give it to you.

Originally posted by Handel
Speaking of AI - I guess there are some 14 years from the first Civ - but AI didn't get better at all. Instead the awful AI is compensated with VERY VERY HUGE bonuses.

And yet just a moment ago you proved how the AI was smart by occasionally flat out sticking it to you over resources." I have yet to see the "AI on Puppet Strings" threads that were so prevalent in C2 and C3, as well.

Originally posted by Handel
What do I mean? And it get them even at the noble level, which should be fair level if we have to beleive to the devs. And already on the next level the AI get not just "huge", but "tremendous huge bonuses".

Be specific, please. Though you may wish to consider that this information is available in the XML files for everyone to read... and that the bonuses given to the AI at noble are pretty miniscule.

Originally posted by Handel
Just to mention for the measly 8 turns of a Golden Age, it usually researches 5-6 techs (talking about prince level).

So you're playing Quick speed, then. 5 techs in 8 turns of Golden Age, for a strong player, is not at all out of the picture. Perhaps you should examine your empire building skills if you aren't receiving the same benefits.

Originally posted by Handel
Starting techs and traits. Obviously some of the starting traits are very unbalanced. And they are compensated by giving better starting techs.

This isn't obvious; please explain your thinking. Many players (myself included) swear by Organized at higher difficulties, and find Spiritual to be a tremendous advantage for civic micromanagement in the late game. Give me a dry Pangea and I'll show you just how useless Financial can be.

Originally posted by Handel
Like spiritual and mysticism, giving the possibility to grab the early religion. This way there is no reason to go for the later religions and can spend the research for something usefull.

There is always a reason to research a later religion:
Monotheism: If you like the Org Rel civic, which many do.
Code of Laws: Caste System can be devastating, nevermind that it's part of the Oracle-for-Civil Service slingshot.
Theology: When your warmongering calls for more than just Vasallage.
Philosophy: Key to heading for Liberalism, and the Angkor Wat can be an immense financial boon.
Divine Right: The wonders available here and just beyond it are quite potent, indeed.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Handel
Not to mention the possibility to earn very early in the game relatively big money, to befriend and to spy all the nearby civs. Luckily the AI grabs the religions, but doesn't look actively to benefit from it.
So if you want to start with certain nation/leader you are sentenced to research the same over and over again wihtout a chance for something better. And besides why this? Someone knows mining and someone knows mysticism and someone knows wheel and someone knows farming... The great secrets - how to bury some potatoes in the soil.../quote]
Why are you "sentenced" to research the same things over and over? Certain leaders are strong in certain areas early on - if you chooose NOT to leverage a strength of your empire and instead try to go into another region, you risk losing to someone who already IS strong in that area. The same thing happens when the AI tries to leverage into your terrain. Let me know what happens the next time you see Washington try to declare war on Rome during the Classical era.

Originally posted by Handel
The space race, the diplomatic and the culture victory are becoming more and more politicaly correct and more and more stupid. Why? About the space race - read somewhere in the forum the topic "because of my ally I lost the space race".

Clearly you didn't read this thread very far, if at all. This is a bug peculiar to Permanent Alliances, an optional feature that allows you to chain yourself to an AI for the remainder of the game. I fail to see what this has to do with political correctness.

Originally posted by Handel
But this is not the most important - more important is the game ends for the AI when it starts to "smell" the space race. The AI stops any play except building feverishly the space parts. And the player must do the same if don't want to lose already won game.

Again, you may wish to examine your information more closely. A war declaration has a funny effect on someone going space-happy. Try it sometime. And if you don't like the fact that the AI can BEAT you, you can turn space race off, and you aren't hurt by it. Other people like it, though...

Originally posted by Handel
The diplomatic victory? Most stupid and annoyng thing, including the laughable UN wonder. No wonder most players swith it off agter the first game.

Why? How? In what way? This is how players who don't want to warmonger all game win, particularly on higher difficulties where peacemaking and good relations may be one of the key roads to success. You preferred the C3C system of "one nation, one vote" where one-city states had the equal voice to hundred-city empires? And if you don't like it, you can turn it off, and you aren't hurt by it. Other people like it, though...

Originally posted by Handel
The culture victory? Again politicaly correct game killer! Why? Read the forum for the ways to win culture victory. I don't think putting the slider to produce culture only turn after turn and pray to win before the AI has something in common with the enjoyable gameplay.

Okay, so you're a warmonger. Congratulations. The slider is one way to do things, by the way - I find that researching multiple religions (even though you seem to think researching multiple religions is a terrible idea) and building lots of Cathedrals is also quite effective. And if you don't like it, you can turn it off, and...I'm sure you get the idea...

Originally posted by Handel
And not to mention the culture doesn't win in the human history, but quite the opposite - the most cultured nations easily perish from the barbaric warmongers...

Again, you enjoy warmongering. So do I. A cultural victory is an option available to players who don't like warmongering. If you don't like it, don't go for it. Some would argue that a nation that clearly and strongly affects the entire world for centuries has achieved a cultural victory. Has that happened yet? I wouldn't presume to say - but some might indeed think so, and some might say there is a nation whose cultural influence (though certainly not political influence) is doing so now.

Originally posted by Handel
Let's proceed with the diplomacy... Obviously the devs tried to make the AI diplomacy more "dumbproof" putting those red flags on the different trades. But there is no diplomacy AI at all. So the AI don't attack his most dangerous enemies, don't trade the resourses it needs, makes stupid demands and gives away tributes which no one asked from them.

Okay, so you're telling me they're trying to curry favor from other nations. When humans butter up an AI like that, it's called "Smart play." When an AI does it to another AI, or a human, it's "stupid."

Weird.

Originally posted by Handel
Instead you can manipulate it as you like just because you are friendly with them (which often means because you grabbed an early religion and the AI took the religion from you)

So you spent time, effort and production to build missionaries to spread your religion enough to ensure that it became, and remained, the dominant religion in their empire? Kudos to you. Some people would prefer to build units and take the empire, instead.

Originally posted by Handel
Probably there are other things too, but that's all from now. I played a lot this game and probably will play it a lot more, but... as I said I don't feel it and frankly I like it less then all the previous Civ games.

I look forward to seeing your comments when you play the game a bit more and split off your misconceptions from the facts of the game, and when you understand the AI isn't there to serve your empire for an easy win, but is there to further its own aims, which you may or may not always understand or agree with.

[MasterDave]

Fred you are a DEFENSIVE FANBOY!!!

Handel, a lot of what you are ranting about (AI getting huge bonuses and cheating, luckballing trumping strategy, AI diplomacy being too predictable/ easy) applies equally to every previous version of Civ. I love it when people rant that Civ 4 is the worst of the series and then the bulk of their complaints are almost all things that were "wrong" with Civ I, II, and III previously.

Right now I like Civ4 quite a bit, and think that it is deeper strategically than its predecessors with the additions of religion, great people, and unit promotions. It certainly has the best Multiplayer (although the multiplayer Lamespy platform needs improvement from a connectivity and stability standpoint) .

Although it is my favorite version of civ now, after playing it for about six weeks, I am going to reserve judgement as to whether or not it is my favorite version of civ until after having it for a year or more. The older civs were able to hold my attention for years, once Civ4 has done that, then and only then will I make a decision about its greatness.

[John-SJ]

MasterDave,

Don't confuse added complexity for depth of strategy. For strategic depth I doubt any game could rival chess or Go, but both, Go especially, are simplicy itself.

And I think that Handel is trying to convey some very subjective thoughts here. True, many of the things that he complains about were problems also in previous Civs, but maybe in those previous games (in Handel's thinking anyway) the way those problem areas related to the rest of the game made them less glaring somehow.

And I am having some serious problems with CIV as well. True, part of it is just because I keep bumping my head into problems that surely could have been (and most certainly, SHOULD have been) fixed before release. But playing CIV has re-sparked an interest in both Civ2 and 3 for me, and right now I have no idea which will win out.

As one of Handel's respondents suggested of Handel, maybe I will find CIV more palletable after an expansion or two, or at least after some serious patching, and I don't mean to add features, I mean to fix many outstanding problems that severely detract from my enjoyment of the game.

[Blake]

Good god.

So far I've only seen one person has also made the (correct) observation that RAGING BARBARIANS ATTACK ALL PLAYERS.

You only see them attack you, because you only SEE them attacking you. This is because you only see YOUR territory.

All the barbs you SEE attack YOU because they are in YOUR territory, they are THERE to attack YOU not 3rd party wanderers.

There should be some fancy name for this principle but I don't know. I know it's in the same category as thinking the earth is the center of the universe, and the logical fallacy of "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist".

[Enigma_Nova]

It's called "Ignorance", and it pwns j00.
gg?

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Blake
Good god.

So far I've only seen one person has also made the (correct) observation that RAGING BARBARIANS ATTACK ALL PLAYERS.

You only see them attack you, because you only SEE them attacking you. This is because you only see YOUR territory.

All the barbs you SEE attack YOU because they are in YOUR territory, they are THERE to attack YOU not 3rd party wanderers.

Perhaps this is as you say but still I can assume you from my OWN experience that in many cases Barbarians somwhow seem to choose to attack the Human rather than the A.I (A barbarian might stand just next to an A.I city for instance while my Archer is 2 squares away on a hill... barbs turn around and start chasing my Archer)

I suspect however that Barbs do not do this because they somehow make a diference between a human and an A.I player. Rather I think barbarians are (correctly) calculating witch one would be the easiest prey.
In almost all cirmumstances the human player will be because of the 40% barbarian bonus the A.I players are enjoying so when having a choice, barbarians will attack the human players rather than the A.I.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Blake
Good god.

So far I've only seen one person has also made the (correct) observation that RAGING BARBARIANS ATTACK ALL PLAYERS.

You only see them attack you, because you only SEE them attacking you. This is because you only see YOUR territory.

It is not true. I see many of my neighbours cities too because I have the holy city of their main religion. The raging barbarians started to attack their cities AFTER they expanded and fully surrounded my empire.
A typical example of what was before that: My border city and 3 tiles from it a german city. My city gets at least 2 barbarain attacks per turn and absolutely no attack on the neighbour city, although the barbarians are hugging the borders of the german city to come to me.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Saurus



In almost all cirmumstances the human player will be because of the 40% barbarian bonus the A.I players are enjoying so when having a choice, barbarians will attack the human players rather than the A.I.

It probably is so, but why this bonus on noble and prince level? Weren't we suposed to be even with the AI on noble level?

[Blake]

I've seen Barbarians hug *MY* borders, and even walk *through* my territory to get to *AI's*, I've seen this on several different ocassions.

My theory is that barbs are actually born to harrass a certain player, which is *usually* the player nearest to them, but every so often something weird happens and they'll go on treks to another player.

They will oppurtunisticly attack wandering units of other players, but not as a high priority. But they will for example kill missionaries or workers (losing my missionaries to barbs in AI's territory was one of the things that clued me on to how big the AI barb problems actually are!).

But here's the other thing about not seeing the Barbs attacking the AI, where you DO see the AI is likely to be closest to your borders, where YOU are revealing fog and preventing many barbs spawning on that front, but it's entirely possible (and more likely!) there will be barb-fronts on the far side of their empire.

The 40% AI bonus vs barbs is probably because the AI's get reamed so badly by barbs as it is. Without that bonus, they WOULD lose many cities and sometimes their capital. Raging barbs eliminating AI's on Noble wouldn't be at all unusual, and it would happen on monarch too with settings ideal for barb spawning. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it might be fun to mod the bonus out for "Survival of the fittest" play, some more eliminations would be nice...)

As it is the worst that happens is the AI loses a few outlying cities to barbs, and gets pillaged clean. Pretty often I've seen AI's that have been damaged far more by barbs than me, mainly because despite their 40% bonus, they'll hardly ever attack barbs with archers - archers are either born City Defenders or Attackers, defenders will NEVER attack a barb - I've seen Mansa with 2 Skirmishers huddling in a city letting a half health barb warrior pillage his horses and several other improvements! AI's that manage to hook up Horses and get some chariots out tend to kick the barbs out, because chariots are always designated as attackers and with the bonus they destroy barbs, so there is kind of a chance that the AI will do really well versus barbs, but there's also a chance they'll get utterly reamed and will be doomed to be a minor civ due to the extreme damage done.

If you really wanna see AI's getting ruined by barbs, play Highlands with Raging Barbs.

[Cort Haus]

On the barbs, there is probably a moddable combat variable that contains the AI bonus vs barbs. Levelling out this should stop the AI tending to pick a human rather than an AI target if both are available from the current tile. There may also be an 'encroachment' time when they enter the cultural radius that is later for the AI than for the human. Just guessing, though.

Handel, perhaps you can find another game to play. Everything about this one is "stupid" according to you, so it seems sensible not to play it.

There are many valid criticisms of Civ 4, plus a load of subjective issues, but when you are having to constantly post how "stupid" it is, it's hard to understand why you're still playing it.