CIV IV makes me sad

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by ChITty
Poor player because I don't micromanage the hell out of the game? Then yes.

Yup.

Jeez, call Civ4 micro intensive? Kids today.................

[ChITty]

Hardly a kid. Too micro for a busy professional, yes.

The thread I linked to also discussed an AI production advantage on Noble.


Too many apologists on these forums too eager to boost how they've been sucessful gimmicking the game. Yay for the harcore, boo for the franchise.

[DrSpike]

I'm afraid I call bs. Civ4 requires hardly any micro, especially compared with earlier games in the series. It does require skill though.

And the games aren't that long either. If you do face time constraints how about putting in a little longer planning and spreading a given game out over a longer period? Maybe then you wont lose.

[ChITty]

can you not read? Kids....

I didn't say I was losing. I was disappointed about how the gameplay has changed over the different versions.

Do you select what to build on each tile? Do you individually manage your cities?

The strategic side of CIV was the interesting thing to me. Exploring the unknown map, interactions with neighboring civs, managing technology development, warfare. Not poking around in the city screen squeezing every ounce of production out, or choosing from the different tile improvements. Other games in the series had just 3 tile improvement types, and even that was incredibly annoying. Now, in order offset the AI's production bonus you have to micromanage each tile on the normal difficulty? No thanks.

[DrSpike]

Well if you don't like the micro in Civ4 I amazed you like any games in the series, as they have more micro.

My view is that you aren't very good at the strategy side, and blame your poor results on not wanting to micro which city squares are used. But then, I'm mean.

And probably someone has already pointed this out, but if opening your city screen really offends you that much just set your cities to max food and anyone half decent can beat Noble anyway.

[Thedrin]

Why do you care?

The production boost discussed in the linked post is a one-time-only +8 hammers.

Is that really (really?) such a big deal? If so, you can, at noble level, just walk your warrior into the first opposing capital you come across, eliminating a close by rival and its production bonus and giving more room for early expansion.

But no. You're winning at Noble so why do you care about that boost - clearly you don't need to micromanage to overcome that 8 hammer mountain.

[ChITty]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well if you don't like the micro in Civ4 I amazed you like any games in the series, as they have more micro.

My view is that you aren't very good at the strategy side, and blame your poor results on not wanting to micro which city squares are used. But then, I'm mean.

And probably someone has already pointed this out, but if opening your city screen really offends you that much just set your cities to max food and anyone half decent can beat Noble anyway.

That's counter intuitive. If I was so bad strategically, I shouldn't be able to win (not easily of course and as I've mentioned many times... it's not "fun") using the default city management and automated workers.

You last comment is a valid one and I'm going to do that tonight and give it a go.

[DrSpike]

I read your first post as saying you were having problems with winning - certainly this is implied, with the comment about the gigantic AI armies.

If this is not the case then really there is no need to whine about the AI bonuses. In fact they should be bigger to offset your imba strat skills.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by ChITty
That's counter intuitive. If I was so bad strategically, I shouldn't be able to win (not easily of course and as I've mentioned many times... it's not "fun") using the default city management and automated workers.

So you don't like micromanaging, and you don't like using the automation.

Right.

[Sabre2th]

Chitty, you seem to have no purpose in this thread other than to bad mouth the game.

People have tried giving advice and have explained the mechanics of the game. Basically your only response has been, "the AI cheats," which people have already stated is not particularly significant at Noble.

Bottom Line:
If you want to play and have fun, you will need to really think about your strategy and adapt to the game as it unfolds. If you don't want to do that, then you're free to go find another game to play.

[Prussia]

What you have to realize is that this game is alot better than D&D where it's literally a dice-roll. There will always be some dissapointments, and the game teaches you that even though the odds might be in your favor, you should always bring an extra warrior/longbowman/modern armour.

[One_more_turn]

The thread starter is a troll. Stop replying to him and let his pathetic posts sink to the bottom of the pile.

[anhalibut]

ChITty,

if you're interested, here's a turn 1 save game with a really good starting location.

Egypt, Noble, pangea, marathon

I don't think I've had a better capital, and there are lots of resources nearby.

http://apolyton.net/upload/view/50270_AutoSave_Initial_BC-4000Egyptgoodstart.Civ4SavedGame

[Bkeela]

Re: CIV IV makes me sad

Originally posted by ChITty
I'm so tired of full power superior units being killed by units two notches below them only because their AI controlled units. Why even bother with the percentages? I play on Noble and when it says 70% combat odds, that seems more like 30% odds of my unit winning... just retarded. I understand that there's a good possibility of loss... but after seeing unit after unit be destroyed by a weaker unit I just want to puke.

I stopped playing CIV IV for a long while because of the crazy AI advantages (until I got warlords tonight) and again I'm reminded why it makes me want to do a zidane to my monitor after playing. Noble is balanced my ass. Somehow the AI can build up gigantico stagnant armies while remaining technically advanced. Meanwhile players are redlining their treasuries to keep their tech up to speed.

Obviously I'm going to roll the difficulty down because I'm not interested in gimmicing the game and shoe-horning the game style into a A -> B -> C rinse and repeat strat. My point is that the medium difficulty shouldn't rely on giving AI advantages, it seems very cheap to me for what tries to be such a heady game.

I hear you. Programmers have come here and stated that the AI doesn't cheat in regard to odds - others explain it away saying that you only notice negative losses but never remember when you achieve an against the odds victory. That is BULL****!

I wouldn't feel like a miracle has taken place if my 70% probablility favours a victory if the odds weren't rigged.

I accept the situation though. I factor it into my gameplay. It is just insulting to common sense to suggest it isn't rigged.

Either the odds are rigged, or the universe hates me and I'm an unlucky bastard.

[Blake]

Either the odds are rigged, or the universe hates me and I'm an unlucky bastard.

I'm sorry to hear that the universe hates you.