Question about gameplay

[d=me]

I have a basic question that I can't find a webpage explaining it. What exactly makes civilizations so good? From the reviewers they only say that it's so addictive, rich, excellent, etc... and nothing specific.

[jorack]

I would say its the replayability of the game. I mean you can play one civilization, beat it, and then start a new game, and it will, in most cases, be entirely different from your previous game. Most other single player games, you just dont see that. Furthermore, the game is very well polished. There's a lot of in-depth content. From managing your diplomatic stature among the other civs, to the managing of your cities and your armies, to the wealth of information on every unit/building and wonder of the world. I've been playing this civilization since civ 1 came out, and civ 4 is just has the same replayability that its predecessors have and it gets more fun in each new civilization launch.

The other thing that i find that makes it a great game is the strategy that is involved. Like all turned based strategy games, you have to plan ahead. It's kinda like chess. You have to plan ahead your moves to gain the advantage. In this game, that is no different and its always fun trying new and different ways in reaching your goals. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you dont.

[d=me]

But can't you do that with any other strategy game that has many sides to play?

[Bkeela]

From one settler you can create an empire. From utter impotence you rise above barbarian attacks, hostile foreigners, economic stagnation, to eventually dominate the entire globe if you are clever enough. It feels good to realise little goals along the way.

[Solver]

The real turns-ons are the strategic depth and replayability. Note that with regards to strategic depth there have been failures, such as in Civ3. Basically, strategic depth means that there are many choices to make, and that there are numerous good choices. There must not be a One Right Choice (TM) situation. On the simplest level, in Civ4 it's how you can choose between the different research paths and worker improvements, with each having a bunch of upsides and downsides. On a more complex level, it's making long-term decisions. And the strategic depth lies in the fact that there are many good decisions to make, and that each decision has to be weighed.

And there's the replayability. I never cease to be amazed by that in all of the years in playing Civ. Due to the basic nature of Civ, the map means a LOT for the game you're playing. And the maps are very, very different each time. The different maps, the different choice combinations you can make and the different AI behaviour together create this totally amazing replayability.

[Ming]

So far... each game is different. Different civs require different strategies. The variety makes it a game I will be playing for a long time. It's not just some game you master quickly, then tire of.

And the different levels of difficulity make a new challenge just one selection away. I highly doubt I will be beating the toughest level on a regular basis in the near future... if ever.

[Solver]

I highly doubt I will be beating the toughest level on a regular basis in the near future... if ever.

This being something that most people can subscribe to . There's just a handful of people out there who can somewhat regularly deal with Deity, and even they depend on the right map circumstances. Good stuff .

Different civs require different strategies.

A small, but nice bit. There are 26 leaders right now - with each having a different trait combination, each leader plays somewhat differently. Given how you need 26 games to explore them all, and I don't see how a game can be played in less than 10 hours... talk about the game lasting for a long time.

[Will9]

One of the feateares that all of the other strategy games don't have is the abillity make the game to your liking. If you're in the mood for a land war a land war set it on pangea, or arcipaegeo for a naval war. You can also chose your leader depending on what type of victory you prefer or are in the mood for. Ceaser for conquest, Louis XIV for cultural, and Washington for diplomatic.

[Solver]

Yep, gotta commend Civ4 on that, too. Then again, the best game I've seen with regards to game options remains Rise of Nations. The customization on the option screen was seriously kick-ass. Civ4 can come close, but RoN definitely beats it in this regard.

Then again, Civ4 also has actual modding ability. Play around with the files a bit and make the AI uber-aggressive, or make all resources very rare...

[d=me]

Well I have never played any title in this series before and the question that I have is about the depth and richness of the game. To be precise, the units/buildings/techs seem so generic and simple in the game. Like most other games have many different individual units for each type but in this game I read that there is Tank, Cannon, infantry, etc... And the technologies sound generic. Compared to Alpha Centauri, rise of nations or many other games this seems a bit simplistic. Like don't you have to have a large variety of elements (ie. units, techs)?

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by d=me
Well I have never played any title in this series before and the question that I have is about the depth and richness of the game. To be precise, the units/buildings/techs seem so generic and simple in the game. Like most other games have many different individual units for each type but in this game I read that there is Tank, Cannon, infantry, etc... And the technologies sound generic. Compared to Alpha Centauri, rise of nations or many other games this seems a bit simplistic. Like don't you have to have a large variety of elements (ie. units, techs)?

The scale of Civ4 is such that you couldn't have too much specialization of unit types. One turn represents anything from 1 year to 50 years, depending on the era and the game speed. There are only two levels of tanks (Tank and Modern Armor) because dividing it up more would result in you having a new kind of tank every turn or two. Civ4 is very abstract when it comes to combat.

Scenarios where the timescale is smaller can be created, and there are mods that have a lot more different kinds of units, but that doesn't work well with the 'vanilla' game.

[Solver]

Originally posted by d=me
Well I have never played any title in this series before and the question that I have is about the depth and richness of the game. To be precise, the units/buildings/techs seem so generic and simple in the game. Like most other games have many different individual units for each type but in this game I read that there is Tank, Cannon, infantry, etc... And the technologies sound generic. Compared to Alpha Centauri, rise of nations or many other games this seems a bit simplistic. Like don't you have to have a large variety of elements (ie. units, techs)?

One very important thing to note is that quantity does not equal quality. This game would quite definitely suck if they threw in another 30 modern units. Yes, you have your basic Tank unit. But you use promotions to customize them as you go, hence a Combat II Tank, a City Raider II Tank and a Flanking II Tank are quite different units.

In fact, it's quite similar to the Alpha Centauri design workshop in a way. Key difference is, the AI can use it. And, the Civ4 way feels better to me, like a natural evolution of the workshop. The point is, you still end up with quite different units. Also, how many units did you *really* use in SMAC? I've played that game a lot, but I certainly did well in my wars with just a bunch of unit types. I was more likely to have 5 types of units, and 4 units of each type in a war, than 20 units each of a different type.

Civ4 certainly has far more strategy than RoN. Alpha Centauri, well, that one probably still has more elements than Civ4. The big problem with SMAC, though, was that the AI was absolutely unable to deal with most concepts - and, frankly put, that many concepts were in fact useless, while present.

[rah]

Yes, the civ IV AI only needs one stratagy.
Assemble huge stack.
Attack with seige units to do collateral damage, finish attack with rest of stack. (rinse and repeat)
Not that complicated.

[Prussia]

For me, it is purely the massive amount of stuff available to do, civilization custom tweaks available, SO many strategies to learn, and it's just the massive amount of stuff to do. It's all alot of fun, and I've been playing this game for a few months now, and STILL haven't discovered EVERYTHING.

To me, it's the massive replayability and the fun in replaying.

[Solver]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, the civ IV AI only needs one stratagy.
Assemble huge stack.
Attack with seige units to do collateral damage, finish attack with rest of stack. (rinse and repeat)
Not that complicated.

That is, at best, one military tactic, and certainly not the entire AI strategy .