Article: Civilization 4 Review by "Yin26" (Part 3/3)

[DanQ]

"Yin26", a long-time "on" and "off" poster on Apolyton Civilization Site`s (ACS) forums and strategy gamer, has completed his review of Civilization IV exclusively for ACS. He received his copy of the game thanks to funds raised through an effort in ACS` Civ community earlier this year.

Yin26`s ~11,000 word review has been broken up into three parts. Part 2 was published last week [see related story], and Part 3 has been published today. This final instalment is entitled "CivIV According to Yin". "Finally we come to the most subjective part of the review wherein I share with you bits of some games that I found interesting. [..] I hope these very different approaches to playing style and difficulty level illustrate something about CivIV... Despite all my critical views of [the game], I think that [Lead Designer] Soren [Johnson] is listening to fans. [..] With any luck (and tons of hard work in Hunt Valley), CivIV will be our strategy game of choice for years and years to come".

More commonly referred to as just "Yin", he was notably vocal and critical in the past of Alpha Centauri, Civilization: Call to Power and more recently Civilization III. The 34-year-old lives in New Haven, Connecticut with his wife and two young daughters.

---------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[LDiCesare]

Reading this review, I must say that I like Time victory and don't disabe spaceship, so many points you make are moot to me.

you can simply mouse over the city and see what units are guarding it! This should be cut from CivIV post-haste!

I think indeed it would make spies useful, but I also think that if a unit attacks a city, then you should learn what the defenders are (kind of suicide spy). (Stacked combat in ctp2 alloed that btw.)

The first image on page 4/5 looks like a bad link by the way.

you'll still run out of tech tree, out of new unit types, and, possibly, out of patience with the magnitude of micromanagement.

I kind of agree here. At least on normal speed, the late game is usually a "my opponent is so far I can't reach him before he gets a space victory" even if my military might can roll over every one up to him but it takes time. I blame bad skill for this however.
These points:

8. A.I. civs that will actually surrender when you are clearly more powerful than they are…imagine the time savings and added realism over taking down civs to the last city.
9. Stacked combat! A highlight of the CTP series, frankly.
10. Public Works! -- No more workers cluttering up the screen, and you just might pay more attention to tile improvements.
11. A useful encyclopedia of game ideas.

I wholeheartedly agree with.

I think your review lacks an element about Space Race, Diplomatic victory and more importanty Culture.
Here's my opinion and some reasons I think why you didn't review them.
Space race: You don't like it. I think when the ai wins a space race victory, it just prompts you to stop the game because it was becoming tedious anyway. If you want to do a space race yourself, I see little interest in it. Civ2 had a real race. The Chinese led and had sent a ship but then I could send a ship with more engines and beat them. In cIV nope. I don't like it either, because I think it lacks trhill. Oh, and the Apollo project requirements are just silly and come with it being built in 1930 by someone who has no idea what a plane is. I think it's silly.
Diplomacy: You voted for Gandhi once but didn't try to win that way. Personnally, I think diplomacy is either a poor man's domination (get the population and vote yourself winner) or something which could be interesting but I Culture: This one's interesting because you didn't say you had the culture victory removed. Did you? I haven't seen an ai try to go for a cultural victory ever.
These 3 kinds of victories have something in common, though: In all the cases, you are left with cities which have nothing to do in the late game. You have nothing to do with your units either. All of these are victory consitions in which you just press end turn and make an interesting decision once every 5 or 6 turns. It's my opinion only, but it looks strangely like yours even though you didn't address these victory conditions. Compare the culture victory to that of Galciv, for instance, where even a remonte star could help you win by providing culture and building constructors. cIV offers little or nothing in the end game in my opinion, unless you're trying to culturally outrace an ai trying to build its ship. But it's a race of clicking end turn.
Sorry if this is threadjacking but I think my conclusions mostly match yours and your review lacked about these points.

[Mergle]

Yin, I think what you overlook about the space race is that it provides a time limit to the game. If you're going for conquest you need to do so before the AI wins by other means. Hence, I've never had a boring future tech n situation - someone gets to AC first.

I think if I'd only played noble I would agree with you - noble is no real challenge. But higher difficulty levels are much more satisfying. You sortof acknowledge this towards the end of the review, but then argue it just delays the "tipping point" - which is where my comments on space race come in.

[And I really don't agree that you should always pick the last most developed form of each civic - many many early civics have value in certain situations all game (simple eg emergency nationhood to repell surprise attack).]

[yin26]

LDiCesare and Mergle:

I wrote the review more or less a month after release, so even I now read a lot of it and think "knowing what I know now after a lot more play, I would tighten many things up." I agree with both of you that a time element on the game radically changes the dynamic.

Many gamers, though, might buy the game for Christmas, select Noble and turn off space or timed victories, looking for a solid warmonger experience. If my review does anything, I hope it shows that taking that approach won't be showing Civ 4 at its best!

As for Civics, I agree that there are special circumstances for switching them (I pay too little attention to that still, to be hones), and I don't think it's all that bad that usually you'd stay on some more than others, but I just thought maybe the choices could be made more interesting. My guess is they will be made more interesting in patchs / X-packs to come.

Thank you both for the comments.

P.S. One thing I would like to note is that by this time after release of a game I would find myself pretty bored and/or looking for a radical strategy to try. Not so with Civ 4. I feel that I have just begun to understand all the new gameplay, and am finding that it's going to be engaging for a LONG time to come. With the likely performance tweaks and hopefully a few tweaks to tech pacing, etc., Civ 4 is a "must buy" game in my view.

[Cort Haus]

Why wouldn't every AI, as a general rule, simply go for all the items listed at the bottom of the civics choices?

Because these are not always appropriate. Different civics suit different situations & requirements.

Nothing was going on at this point ..... Perhaps I should leave on timed victories or the space race next time? I guess that forces the time issue on the player, but those just aren't victories that mean much to me.

It seems odd to turn off key victory condidtions then complain that the game is dragging. You don't want to fight, or build a spaceship, or take a points win. I'm guessing you weren't playing for culture. You haven't fulfilled the conditions for the Diplowin you presumably sought so its surely game over and start again.

One thing that makes attacking enemy cities at this level so darned easy is you can simply mouse over the city and see what units are guarding it! This should be cut from CivIV post-haste!

How can you plan an attack in Civ 4 without knowing what units you are against? You can't, period.

Of course, I chose the conquest victory, so what should I expect? Well, perhaps more of a challenge from the AI would turn this city tedium into something fun? I don't have it in me to slog through to the end on this one.

C'mon, you're whipping a trainer level and complaining how easy it is. Also you're aiming at a conquest win and using the phrase 'Infinite Attack Sleaze', as if this is a new variant of Infinite City Sleaze. How can you get a conquest, though, unless you attack until ENEMY_CITIES = 0? If the civ surrendered at a certain point and gave you all cities wouldn't you say that was too easy?

However, you then go on to have an interesting challenge at Monarch in which, had you got to the end game, you might have had the tense space race that scores of players are reporting.

------

It has always been the case, in every Civ incarnation, that the early game is more fun than the late game unless there is a close race at the end. Being miles ahead at Noble then complaining about 'too easy' is surely not right. Basing a review around Noble level, with a couple of short forays into the tough Emperor and Monarch, while skipping Prince, (the first real challenge level) probably doesn't bring out the best from the game.

A problem with difficulty level in Civ 4 is that the gradation is not very smooth between Prince and Monarch, as the AI advantages take too a big leap for the comfort and enjoyment for many players. This is a tweak issue though, not a core issue.

[Cort Haus]

Yin, I've just read your post above, and it seems that you're discovering the immersion that I've been constantly accusing you of missing! Good on ya!

Like you say, a tweak here, a tweak there ....

[LDiCesare]

How can you plan an attack in Civ 4 without knowing what units you are against? You can't, period.

Yin addressed that point by proposing spies to play that role of intelligence gathering. That's the way it was done in civ1 in call to power and many other games. It would make a difference, by requiring you to build recon units. New uses (or just uses) for explorers and spies (or missionaries, or open borders if youi lead any unit into the city). This would add more strategy to the game, not prevent anyone from planning an attack.

[Cort Haus]

Not sure if that's so strategic, as you'll always need one of these spies with every stack. I guess one person's strategy is another person's tedium.

[yin26]

I'd be happy if the stack in a city isn't revealed until you attack it. This way you could throw a disposable unit in there if you like rather than a spy. I just think that being able to mouse over a city to see its defenses makes the logistics of war too easy.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by yin26
I'd be happy if the stack in a city isn't revealed until you attack it. This way you could throw a disposable unit in there if you like rather than a spy. I just think that being able to mouse over a city to see its defenses makes the logistics of war too easy.

My point is that you have to build and bring the right tools in advance. You can't wait until you get there to see what your plans should have been 10-15 turns ago. In Civ 3 it didn't matter what was in there because you just needed enough units. Now the unit type matters we need to know in advance. So does the AI.

We already have open borders, scouts, religion and a stats screen for intelligence, and I think it works fine. Even when you know what's in there you have to build a war machine that can deliver, and an economy that can pay for it, and consolidate the gains. These things are not always straight-forward, especially on higher difficulties.

[yin26]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
My point is that you have to build and bring the right tools in advance. You can't wait until you get there to see what your plans should have been 10-15 turns ago.

Right, so why not send out an exploratory unit 10-15 units ahead of time? Also, if defenders in a city change over those 10-15 turns, why not suck up a little surprise? I don't know the MP implications of this (lots of chicanery, I'm sure), but this would make the SP experience a little more interesting, at least for me.

[Cort Haus]

I'm not sure how much surprise can be realistically catered for without creating 'Infinite Unit Haul'.

I'm also unsure now whether you're advocating suicide units at the start of combat, civ-1 style spy units in peacetime, or both. Presumably you'd need to remove the line-of-sight feature from religion too.

[yin26]

I'd prefer the spy unit, as spying seems a bit nerfed in Civ 4 anyway. Also, I'd personally keep line-of-sight for religion, which would add that much more impetus for religion-based strats.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
My point is that you have to build and bring the right tools in advance. You can't wait until you get there to see what your plans should have been 10-15 turns ago. In Civ 3 it didn't matter what was in there because you just needed enough units. Now the unit type matters we need to know in advance. So does the AI.

We already have open borders, scouts, religion and a stats screen for intelligence, and I think it works fine. Even when you know what's in there you have to build a war machine that can deliver, and an economy that can pay for it, and consolidate the gains. These things are not always straight-forward, especially on higher difficulties.

However, there are too many tools in place now that allow a player to easily determine what forces he needs, how many units to bring...and it is entirely no-risk and no-cost to the player.

With open borders, I can send units in for a quick visual interior recon on an intended target (or use planes to get a quick snapshot). Line of sight from a missionary might cost resources, but, it allows the same power, and gives a gold return to boot.

Even if I have closed borders, I can sit on a border and scope a city to see exactly what is in there. This makes my job altogether too easy when planning a war.

There needs to be an element of uncertainty. Knowing exactly what you face, where it is and the strength of your opponent eliminates so much of the risk involved with war.

CTP hid the exact composition of a stack in both cities and out in the field, but since you knew that a tile could only have 12 units, you sorta knew what you had to go against. It definitely provided a little more guesswork to the player.

Since civ is a game that primarily focuses on city conquest as the goal of war, I'd favor what was done in civ3 - put the strongest unit on top in a city and leave the rest hidden.

If you want intelligence on a city, you have to pay for it via spies, (and using missionaries would only give line of sight, and at best, partial intelligence of the number and type of units in a city) and you risk a great deal of reputation backlash if caught.

Even a unit thrown in as a suicide attack should reveal nothing.

The reason why I'd favor hiding the unit occupation is that the number of cities in the game are greatly reduced from previous versions of civ. As such, you need to provide a geater challenge in taking each city because they now have greater value.

[Cort Haus]

No, this is just a recipe for either Infinite Unit Sleaze or Combat Lotto under the Civ 4 rock-paper-scissors model. It also assumes that the players role is only to take cities, not be attacked.

As a builder, it's essential for me to know what my enemy has so I can prepare a defence force with the correct counters. So it works both ways, doesn't it. The ease of attacking my cities is countered by my ability to build an appropriate counter force.

I can honestly say that I would put down Civ 4 faster than you could say "Promotion" if this blind combat model was enforced.