The Official Nitpick Thread

[Qwertqwert]

As opposed to making the AI smarter as the levels go up, they just make things for you take more turns...

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert
As opposed to making the AI smarter as the levels go up, they just make things for you take more turns...

There really isn't a way to make the AI smarter, you only can make them aggressive, but when you are playing on settler against other AI, it's as if you were playing deity against them.

[Qwertqwert]

Originally posted by Prussia


There really isn't a way to make the AI smarter, you only can make them aggressive, but when you are playing on settler against other AI, it's as if you were playing deity against them.

How do they make chess games harder then?

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


How do they make chess games harder then?

Everytime someone asks that question they should have their rank reset to settler.

[Prussia]

Originally posted by johnmcd


Everytime someone asks that question they should have their rank reset to settler.

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


How do they make chess games harder then?

At risk of having my rank reset to settler ...

Chess programs work the opposite way. These days, a good chess program will beat most human opponents without much difficulty. To give the poor human a chance, the "easier" levels handicap the AI. There are a couple of handicaps that at are widely used - preventing the program "thinking" in the human's time and restricting how many moves ahead the program looks.

One of the problems for Civ is that in Civ games, the computer is spending so much time on the graphics, etc that there is a limit on how much time can be used for "thinking". To overcome the need for computing power, it is possible to introduce "rules of thumb" - for example "always research a tech that will give you a religion if that religion has not been founded". In theory this should help the computer "understand the game" and be able to play better with the same computing power. Unfortunately, in chess, it seems to be the case that raw power improves the AI to a much greater extent than these rules of thumb.

RJM

[wirelessmurf]

General problems

I see some of what I have experienced is addressed, but have a few questions and comments.

I don't know if any of this is related to patching (as in, they didn't exist before the patch), as I have the 1.61 version (and played it a bit without it as well, though all of these issues exist with the 1.61 patch) but I have noticed that:

My Marines disappear as an option when I get Mech Infantry. For the US player, this means also losing the SEALs. This is stupid. Somehow the invention of Mech Inf. did not eliminate the USMC or SEALs in the real world, whose ability to launch a direct sea invasion is still desired after Mech Inf. It also means that if you want to keep this capability, you can't risk losing your existing stock of these units and have to not upgrade them because you'll never build them again.javascript:smilie('')
mad

The SAM infantry also disappear with Mech Inf. They should remain as a lower cost alternative.javascript:smilie('')
Angry

Paratroopers and Mountain troops should exist for obvious reasons. We have had these types of specialists forever (in the modern age). If not making it a particular unit type, it should be an experience/barracks based promotion. Examples of mountain troops abound in history (Rommel achieved fame as an officer in WW1 commanding a newly formed mountain unit on the Italian front).

Gunship units should be allowed to deploy on carriers, perhaps to simulate USMC current helicopter/marine amphibious ships.javascript:smilie('')
yeah right!

Helicopter transports should exist again. Marines used helo units to deploy them on mountain and hilltops starting in Korea, and that's the whole point of the 101st Abn, so having these units would be nice in the game, and it used to be possible in other Civ versions (if I remember correctly).

Why no cruise missiles? A big danger at the Straights of Hormuz in a potential war today is Iranian Silkworm and Sunburn missiles being used to attack naval units. These units should come back. It would also be nice if other naval units could carry them.

In this vein, why no cruisers? It's a nice middle step between DD and BB. While doing this, to represent anti-cruise missile and anti-air capabilities, ships ought to have an experience/barracks upgrade of anti-air specialist.

Why can't spys bribe enemy units anymore?
javascript:smilie('')
Angry
Explorers should be able to climb over mountains, shouldn't they? Why don't mountains have ANY use to a civ (other than as walls/borders)?
javascript:smilie('')
Angry
This one might just be me being newer to the game, but I don't see a ready way to view the city in 3d zoom like some previous versions of the Civ series. That was always nice.

I can't put my finger on it for sure, but in largish games as I expand, it appears that I have to rebuild city improvements from time to time, as if they deteriorated or disappeared from a given city. Money is not an issue, it seems to happen even when I have a massive treasury. I don't see any notifications that things were sold for lack of funds.

There seems to be some stability issues. I have received the vaunted blue screen of death now three times in three days playing this game (and some graphics issues) despite playing with a 256mb vid card, 1GB of RAM, and Centrino Duo CPU set up (HP Pavilion dv8263ea). It is a new computer (patched) I will stay open to the fact that it could be defective somehow out of box. The fact that this happens ONLY with Civ 4, and never once before in the last month is suspicious. It seems to happen after some hours of play, following some graphics glitching.javascript:smilie('')
I said do it!!

As I come up with more, I will add them. I just found this forum this AM after some frustration last night's crash. I love the game, but am bothered at the over simplification of the units and considering going back to Civ3 for a bit as a comparison (had gone months/years without playing) to refresh the memory.

[Thedrin]

On Marines, Mechanised Infantry and Navy SEALS: The Amphibious promotion prevents a 25% penalty when attacking across water so that SEALS stay at 24 when doing so. Mechanised Infantry lose the 25% going from 32 back down to 24. They remain equally as strong as SEALS even without the Amphibious promotion.

SAM Infantry: While these do have a higher chance of intercepting aircraft, when it comes to fighting helicopters the 50% bonus takes them from 18 to 27. Since the Mechanised Infantry is 32 it is better against helicopters without any modifiers.

On helicopter transports, cruise missiles and cruisers: A large number of people complain about the lack of modern units. Consequently there is very probably a mod which includes these units. (Though the level of military micromanagement you seem to want - going by your strait of Hormuz example - doesn't really exist in the general game; you'd need to get a scenario to really get into the military details of a particular era)

On bribing units: There is a thread active at the moment on spies. Many viewed their previous incarnations as overpowered - making the game too easy.

Rebuilding city improvements: If you mean buildings within a city then it shouldn't happen, the buildings are there permanently. If you mean improvements on non city tiles then there is a chance (and I don't know this for certain since I've never seen it happen) that enemy spies are destroying your improvements. If this is the case try stationing a unit on the tile to guard it against sabotage.

[wirelessmurf]

It seems that it is improvements are disappearing after they've been built. I will notice that the capitol needs a theater and I could have sworn that I'd built one some time previously (for example). This happens too often to be coincidence.

I understand my desire for military micromanagement is great, but my style is to so rarely wage war that when one comes up, I enjoy the details. The map abounds with choke points, etc., so using my Straits of Hormuz example, a non naval middling power(like today's Iran) could use a number of cruise missiles to make a naval invasion or presence in its waters dangerous to a large naval power (like the US today) as a valid national defense strategy.

I miss the variety of military units, if only for flavor. I understand that the mech infantry has become the default superior unit, but by making it mathematically so powerful, it eliminates a lot of distinction between military units. It would be nice to have that (and the other stuff I mentioned) back.

[Thedrin]

Understandable on the military strategy. Currently you could say it's partially simulated by Iran having open border pacts with its neighbours. But without a more complex trade model it'll be difficult to improve the simulation by adding lots of different types of units.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by wirelessmurf
I miss the variety of military units, if only for flavor. I understand that the mech infantry has become the default superior unit, but by making it mathematically so powerful, it eliminates a lot of distinction between military units. It would be nice to have that (and the other stuff I mentioned) back.

In Civ4, the flavor with variety of military units is in promotions. I often will even rename my Marines once they obtain Mech Infantry-hood -- laborious, but it works.

[Will9]

In the game I'm currently playing civs arn't seeing techs by their actual value. Most leaders will insist something more valubal than what the tech is worth. For example I want Steel, so I go to Victoria (the only person willing to trade steel) and offer her Democrocy (which is the same value as steel) for Steel. Victoria refuses and requets Rifling and Democracy in exchange for Steel. If I acceped I would be giving Victoria almost twice as much as she is giving me. The AI should see all tech by its value in beackers not strategic value. The only tech I see by strategic value is Alphabet because I don't want the AI trading techs with each other.

[LordShiva]

Re: General problems

Originally posted by wirelessmurf
I see some of what I have experienced is addressed, but have a few questions and comments.

I don't know if any of this is related to patching (as in, they didn't exist before the patch), as I have the 1.61 version (and played it a bit without it as well, though all of these issues exist with the 1.61 patch) but I have noticed that:

My Marines disappear as an option when I get Mech Infantry. For the US player, this means also losing the SEALs. This is stupid. Somehow the invention of Mech Inf. did not eliminate the USMC or SEALs in the real world, whose ability to launch a direct sea invasion is still desired after Mech Inf. It also means that if you want to keep this capability, you can't risk losing your existing stock of these units and have to not upgrade them because you'll never build them again.javascript:smilie('')
mad

The SAM infantry also disappear with Mech Inf. They should remain as a lower cost alternative.javascript:smilie('')
Angry

Paratroopers and Mountain troops should exist for obvious reasons. We have had these types of specialists forever (in the modern age). If not making it a particular unit type, it should be an experience/barracks based promotion. Examples of mountain troops abound in history (Rommel achieved fame as an officer in WW1 commanding a newly formed mountain unit on the Italian front).

Gunship units should be allowed to deploy on carriers, perhaps to simulate USMC current helicopter/marine amphibious ships.javascript:smilie('')
yeah right!

Helicopter transports should exist again. Marines used helo units to deploy them on mountain and hilltops starting in Korea, and that's the whole point of the 101st Abn, so having these units would be nice in the game, and it used to be possible in other Civ versions (if I remember correctly).

Why no cruise missiles? A big danger at the Straights of Hormuz in a potential war today is Iranian Silkworm and Sunburn missiles being used to attack naval units. These units should come back. It would also be nice if other naval units could carry them.

In this vein, why no cruisers? It's a nice middle step between DD and BB. While doing this, to represent anti-cruise missile and anti-air capabilities, ships ought to have an experience/barracks upgrade of anti-air specialist.

Why can't spys bribe enemy units anymore?
javascript:smilie('')
Angry
Explorers should be able to climb over mountains, shouldn't they? Why don't mountains have ANY use to a civ (other than as walls/borders)?
javascript:smilie('')
Angry
This one might just be me being newer to the game, but I don't see a ready way to view the city in 3d zoom like some previous versions of the Civ series. That was always nice.

I can't put my finger on it for sure, but in largish games as I expand, it appears that I have to rebuild city improvements from time to time, as if they deteriorated or disappeared from a given city. Money is not an issue, it seems to happen even when I have a massive treasury. I don't see any notifications that things were sold for lack of funds.

There seems to be some stability issues. I have received the vaunted blue screen of death now three times in three days playing this game (and some graphics issues) despite playing with a 256mb vid card, 1GB of RAM, and Centrino Duo CPU set up (HP Pavilion dv8263ea). It is a new computer (patched) I will stay open to the fact that it could be defective somehow out of box. The fact that this happens ONLY with Civ 4, and never once before in the last month is suspicious. It seems to happen after some hours of play, following some graphics glitching.javascript:smilie('')
I said do it!!

As I come up with more, I will add them. I just found this forum this AM after some frustration last night's crash. I love the game, but am bothered at the over simplification of the units and considering going back to Civ3 for a bit as a comparison (had gone months/years without playing) to refresh the memory.

Sorry, but these complaints are too legitimate to be classified as nit picks. Please try again.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Will9 The AI should see all tech by its value in beackers not strategic value. The only tech I see by strategic value is Alphabet because I don't want the AI trading techs with each other.

I think then you are missing a trick. The AI is absolutely right to value tech by its strategic value, a tech is worth more when the wonder associated with it is unbuilt or there are pockets of the resource it reveals unclaimed. If your civ is deep in jungle then iron working has huge value to you and the AI (and you!) should recognise that.

What your requesting would ****** the AI, not fix a flaw.

[Will9]

One thing that has been getting incresingly annoying to me is enemy attack warnings. They are shown while you are giving build orders so I will often forget about them or won't notice them at all if the volume is on low. These are meant to be clicked on so you can see them, but you can't if you are giving build orders. I think these should be shown at the same time as GP. I don't have the "show enemy moves" on because it doesn't give you time see what is happening.