Announcement

**alva** · October 29, 2005, 02:38

Hi and welcome at apolyton.

Ok, I played an epic game on a huge world. From everything I've read, this sould last for DAYS. 5 hours and I was at 1900.

Even standard games last 20+ hours for me.

How do you people play so quickly...

The problem as I see it is that the techs are still normally paced,

tech is also more expensive.

So what you get is flight in 1855,

Don't look too much at the date, that's just fluff. It's to give you some indication, to suck you in as it were but that's all.

3. I don't know what is up with the RAM usage.

Huge maps take up a lot of resources... not much to be done about that, of course there is always the possibility of a memory leak and maybe they can optimise the code a little.
Civ3 was the same though but we now we have much better computers, so Civ3 doesn't feel as heavy.
In a year (or 2) it will be the same with this one when we all have machines that triple the recommended specs for Civ4.

I think a part of that is because of the more non-linear tech tree, but I hardly ever "look at the big picture" when looking to pick the next tech.

Probably more a "I'm not sure what to choose since I'm not sure what to do and thus have no strategy" issue. Don't worry, no one did at first, it will get better once you have a more clear understanding of it have and everything fits in into your strategy.

**Solver** · October 29, 2005, 09:25

1. Regarding the pacing and tech rates. I don't know how you got to the 20th century in the Epic mode! When I am playing on Standard speed, I completed my fastest game in over 7 hours. Most of my games took me 15 or so hours.

If you are interested, though, you can mod a custom epic mode for yourself. For example, leave the Epic techrate as it is, but have the units be buildable as on Normal speed. That will give you still rather big gaps until new units come around, but also the time to build much more of whatever your current units are.

Ignore those dates, they're not meant to do anything much. OK, if you get Flight in 1 AD, there's something wrong, but generally, they're fluff.

2. Hmm, unit upgrades seem expensive enough to me. If I upgrade my Archers to Riflemen, then I typically don't have the money to do many of those upgrades. If you have too much money, you're playing on too low a difficulty.

Also, in my experience, ancient techs do take more time. On Standard speed, I typically have research times in the 12-16 turn range for earlier techs, but as I develop my cities and infrastructure better later, I start getting techs in 4-6 turns.

3. Yeah, the game uses a lot of RAM, especially on bigger maps. Just the way it is. Civ isn't a very graphically intensive game, but it's a very intensive game for memory. It IS only a temporary problem, though - any new computer you buy now already exceeds the recommended specs for Civ4, and in another 2 years, the recommended Civ4 specs will be considered a really low-end machine.

The first patch might also improve performance slightly.

4. About one leader for some civs, don't worry. The main reason for that would be, I guess, artwork - the art department can only create so many leaderheads in a given amount of time. However, adding new leaders to the game is very simple. Modders could, using portraits as leaderheads, very quickly create mods to include many of the missing leaders - Augustus, Ramesses, Cuauthemoc, Atahualpa, etc.

**PFPulse** · October 29, 2005, 15:10

1. Regarding the pacing and tech rates. I don't know how you got to the 20th century in the Epic mode! When I am playing on Standard speed, I completed my fastest game in over 7 hours. Most of my games took me 15 or so hours.

I just beat the game last night on epic/huge as the french. I won by space race victory. Victoria almost had me as she had only one piece left to build, but I had finished the space elevator a few turns earlier and beat her to the last piece. Total game time 4:33. My difficulty setting was on warlord, with all the other civs on. All the AI civs were about the same tech level as I was, but none really wanted to fight. Peter and Fredrick kept starting wars with each other. The Aztecs and Incans started a few with me, but didn't really attack. Ghandi kept winning Secritary General of the UN...I had it once, but couldn't get the Nuke treaty repealed...I wanted to nuke something! But still...4:33 for an epic game??? I had 12 cities total (only 10 of which I built. Gaul was a captured barbarian city and another was culturally converted). I was getting into the future techs, but so was the AI. I acutally was listed at 5th on the 'most advanced' civs list...while I was researching future tech 1. And the game finished with about 50 turns left to play. I'm not sure whats up, but its very very weird that I'm getting through the game that fast.

**Solver** · October 29, 2005, 17:45

It is very weird indeed. I can't imagine myself getting through an epic game in four and a half hours. I can get through a Normal speed game in 7 hours, but that will be a short game for me. I know other players are also getting times much closer to mine than yours. I absolutely can't see myself managing an Epic games in less than 15 hours. Weird!

I suppose you just have very quick turns. I find, though, that turns are quite long, up to 10 minutes perhaps when at war...

**Leopagne** · October 30, 2005, 00:41

Re: Mostly good, a few concerns

Originally posted by PFPulse
Don't really know what it is, but just a feeling...like how you go to the advisors...and its just a screen...no little advisor there telling you things...it just feels more sterile and not as immersive as previous games...

I have to agree with this. I also miss the ability to build and customize your palace (or a throne room in Civ2).

Otherwise a great game.

**snoopy369** · October 30, 2005, 02:50

Originally posted by alva
[q=PFPulse]Ok, I played an epic game on a huge world. From everything I've read, this sould last for DAYS. 5 hours and I was at 1900.[/q]
Even standard games last 20+ hours for me.

How do you people play so quickly...

Indeed ... I'm still on game one. Not that I'm playing 100%, but I've certainly played more than 5 hours straight, probably ~15, and I'm only 1852 ... and I'm not even an alexman-like MMer ...

PFPulse, what level did you play on? It really sounds like you're playing on too low of a level. The higher the level, the longer techs take ...

**snoopy369** · October 30, 2005, 02:52

Re: Re: Mostly good, a few concerns

Originally posted by Leopagne

[q=pfpulse]Don't really know what it is, but just a feeling...like how you go to the advisors...and its just a screen...no little advisor there telling you things...it just feels more sterile and not as immersive as previous games...[/q]

I have to agree with this. I also miss the ability to build and customize your palace (or a throne room in Civ2).

Otherwise a great game.

Indeed, I agree as well ... I'd prefer the actual advisors of civ2 or civ3 ...

I personally don't miss the palace/throne room, but I can see it being interesting for some

**Arc** · November 3, 2005, 19:40

I've basically been upgrading my archers to riflemen or machine gunners. Goes back to the pacing of the game...way too fast and not balanced. I'm sure this is in mod territory...basically the early techs should take a long time to get and as you move up the tech tree, the discoveries get faster. (especially on epic). For me there is no quick game of civ...I always play the big epic. So I feel this area needs some blancing and work.

This is definitely what will stop me from playing Civ4 any longer, because this is the exact same problem i had with Civ3.

I do not feel the pace of ages with computer AI developping techs too fast and forcing the overall game to push toward modern age.

There is simply no point in the speed at which ancient and medieval ages pass.

Always loved the Civs but this problem is found in every civ game and after 4 games one would wish that the tech tree would develop slower.

**The_Aussie_Lurker** · November 3, 2005, 21:55

I must concur with the others here. Even my tutorial game, last night, lasted me a good 2.5 hours-and I am still not even into the AD's yet. This is really great, BTW, and now I can't wait to see how much better it is in Epic mode

!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

**mansquatch** · November 4, 2005, 13:34

If you want your game to run faster, build many cities early on. If I build 10 or more cities before AD, I will usually be well on my way at the lower difficulty settings. I was able to build future tech with the Romans in under 4 hours at the Settler difficulty. Not sure if this is a game play or CPU issue?

I am hoping that the harder difficult settings will require more time. 3 hours just does not feel very "Civ-ish."

**My PitBull Tank** · November 4, 2005, 14:33

If you want to slow down tech advance, just turn on "no trading between techs" as this will then force everybody into doing their own research.

Think about if you have one civ doing their own research, it takes 100% of the time.

2 civs at optimum trading would mean cut that time in half to 50%, four civs at 25%, and so on and so forth (as ahnold would say

)

Not that i've done this, i'm going to try it tonite tho!!!

**mansquatch** · November 4, 2005, 15:30

It is spelled Ah-Nuld

Get it straight girly man!

**rjwoer** · November 4, 2005, 20:45

My Epic games (3 so far) have averaged 6 hours. I'm disappointed with the pace of the game and am eventually going to adjust the appropriate XML file. And yes, I've micromanaged and gone to war; I'm not just blazing through.

Hmmmmm . . .

Announcement

Mostly good, a few concerns

Mostly good, a few concerns

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment