Civ4 looks like revamped Civ2

[cycl0ps]

Having played a few games of Civ4 it really does like Civ2 with some new stuff and notable omissions. I haven't figured out how to beat another leader yet they seem to hang in there with no cities so I gave conquest up early. It is more challenging than Civ2 in some respects but it lacks the gameplay. It only requires a few cities to win the tech race and the game. Only military exercise required was with the barbarians. Every game I played they provided one or two cities which were easily conquered. I can't figure out why all the other leaders were pleased and friendly when all I traded were spare resources and ignored everything else - weird! Only thing I fiddled about with were the 'emphasise production and food buttons' I just had the workers automated.

[Guynemer]

I highly recommend Marathon length. For the first time ever, I fought a protracted, meaningful ancient-era war.

[Diadem]

Marathon length!? For new players? Are you trying to scare them away! 40 turns to research The Wheel is NOT something you want to unleash on newbies


I don't understand the Topic Starter's sentiment though. Civ4 for me is completely unlike civ2. There are no religions in civ2, no resources, much less diplomacy, much less strategy overall. In civ2 you just beelined for repubic, set luxuries to 100% for a couple of turns, and the game was won. There's no such thing in civ4. There are no easy ways to win.

If you find the game to easy, try a higher difficulty. On settler and chieftain the game is very easy.

[Moonbars]

[RANT]
i think Marathon is the ONLY way to play Civ4. I really disliked the game prior to 1.52 & marathon. It all zipped past way to fast, I had no feel for the different units as I only got to see them for about 20 turns, and as for the techs - it seems to me that on the normal speed setting, there are more techs than C3C, yet less turns.. they fly past so fast I dont even know what they doing for me.

I got zero enjoyment out of Civ4 before 1.52. Now I am at least enjoying the game, although I am very disappointed that the AI still thinks it's a good idea to suicide single horsemen into my garrisoned cities - even when it KNOWS I have more than one unit there, and it KNOWS it's odds are very low, and it KNOWS that I have a big stack that could kill the next turn even if it did win. Same old stupid AI.
[/RANT]

So in summary - I recomend marathon to ALL players, but especially new players who want a chance to digest all the new units, techs and game rules.

[cycl0ps]

Civ2 certainly wasn't so pretty but the gameplay was much better than Civ4. Most of the units in Civ4 never get used it's all automatic. The World domination aspect is naff in Civ4(just like Civ3) unlike reality in great Empires. Early World empires were constrained by communication not maintenance costs.
I played it on marathon on huge at various difficulty settings and like I said the basic engine is the Civ2 one. Winning ain't difficult especially when nobody attacks.

[Cort Haus]

Having played a few games of Civ4 it really does like Civ2 with some new stuff and notable omissions.

I Disagree - vehemently. Civ 2 was Civ 1 with knobs on. Civ 4 is something completely different. Unless food, hammers/shields. commerce, units, settlers is all the same thing to you. The game is as different as any version of Civ can be to another and still be Civ.

Winning ain't difficult especially when nobody attacks.

It only requires a few cities to win the tech race and the game.

Only military exercise required was with the barbarians.

all the other leaders were pleased and friendly

workers automated

it's all automatic

All these comments are symptomatic of low-level play. As you step up the levels the challenge ramps up significantly.

[Diadem]

civ2 was much, much, less strategic. The game was a lot easier as a result. Civ4 is much more complex. Easy choices are very rare.

Take as an example your path to the techtree. In civ4 it's not clear what the best path is. Experts disagree about which techs to research for just about every era of the game.

In civ2 you always took the same path, almost regardless of developments in gameplay. Sometimes a few very minor tweaks depending on your military situation, but mostly it was just the same, game after game after game.

The same for most aspects of the game.

I'm not saying civ2 wasn't a nice game. It was. But civ4 is much, much, deeper.

[Diadem]

Oh, and people who play on Marathon are insane. You really, really, really have too much time on your hands if you play on Marathon. The game is already way too slow in the later eras. It takes forever to do a single turn once you have 20 cities and 100+ military units.

My current game on normal speed and normal map size has been going on for 10 hours. And I think I need at least 2 to finish it. Granted, I'm playing for a conquest victory, a space ship one would have gone a lot faster. But still, a single game takes a long time.

What's the point in tripling that? You must really be insane to want that.

[Krill]

Hey, I prefer to play Quick speed, because that, for me, just about right. Marathon sounds insane. I won't even touch it after trying it...

[Vimpster]

You think 10 - 12 hours is a long game? I just finnished my 3rd game since I bought it and just that one last game took me 72:32 hours and I only played the epic speed on a standard size map. It ended in the year 2028 with me winning a cultural victory of 75000 culture in 3 cities.

[cycl0ps]

Diadem,
on the contrary civ4 is just full of constraints to let the poor AI keep up. That's why civ3 went into my games never to play pile and this one seems destined to go the same way. It might be your kind of game but I like mine more free format and require some real strategy. Civ2 was a fantastic game in its time but I would need convincing that this is.

[Diadem]

Then play the game multiplayer without AIs! You'll find it is still fun!

And what is wrong with constraints to let the AI keep up? Without AIs there's no challenge...

[Krill]

Vimpster, no, my point is that normal is too long, for me, so epic and marathon, would just kill me if I tried to finish a game...

[afrodius]

OK i just got this game for x mas (though ive been a civ fan since the original) so i havent gotten to play epic or marathon yet. There is an obvious reason for the choices of quick to marathon: people have different opinions and play styles. The developers have taken this into account. No one will force you to play a marathon if you dont want to, and no one is gonna force you marathon civ junkies to play it fast and furious.

As far as being just like civ 2 i disagree. Civ 2 was a vast improvement over the original. Civ 3 added further features and additional challenge. Civ 4 i think has built upon the best aspects of civ 3 and added in the best aspects of Alpha Centauri as well. IF you meant teh comparison between civ 2 and 4 as their both fun as hell and vastly addicting i would agree, hehe.

[Gray_Lensman]

The Coolest thing about this newest version of Civ IV, is the different ways that it can be played and thereby accomodate almost everybodys' particular playing style.

Some people can enjoy it fast, some slow, etc.

If they would also add some new custom game options to allow player(s) to randomize the starting techs and leader attributes, you would also have 30,240 combinations of "UUs", "leader attributes" and "starting techs". Wow!