Tweet
When I first started playing this game I thought it was the greatest game ever. I was lost in all the new terrain improvements and the new unit upgrades and all the bells and whistles. As I play it more and more now I realize that it is just make up on a cheap whore. Civilization 4 is in fact Age of Empires 2 Turn Based Edition. Let me explain before I become irreversably mauled by a horde of fanboys.
I played civ2 for 10 years, I loved the game and I was number 1 on the ladder for 3 years straight. I played Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors for 4 years and I was a top US player. I know both games extremely well. Where to begin?
First the combat system in civ4 is very different in that there is no longer a defense value, it is just a general strength value that is modified by upgrades and defensive bonuses. In addition you now have a rock, paper scissors system, just like in AOC where you have the counter system. The problem comes in with the fact that Civ4 isn't AOC...obvious right? Well the counter system in AOC worked because AOC had this thing called unit micro; it was a god damn TBS game. You had spears being microed against scouts, archers against spears, skirms against archers, etc. Well in civ4 there isn't that, the unit that is attacking automatically attacks the unit that counters it in the defending stack making the counter system completely mindless. In addition we lack the features that made TBS...well, strategy. We don't have ZOC, we don't have offensive values and defensive values. We have just one flat rate with insane defensive values awarded to units in cities. You're talking 25% for fortification, 60% for city bonus, 20% for each city defense upgrade on archers, and we aren't even talking about a city with walls and on a hill. Obviously if you do the math you'll see that the city raider upgrade isn't **** compared to the defensive bonus. In comes the catapult, the unit we all screamed was useless in civ3. Now it does collateral damage to stacks, and it just happens to be the ONLY way to defeat a stack. Are you with me? Yes, that means you can't take any properly defended cities until you get construction which is about half way through a typical 150 turn limit game on Quick. So now you have a very obvious "strategy" evolving which I like to call the stack and cat. Just throw together a mass of units and march right on in. Oh, and don't forget to use a "combined arms" force in order to "counter" their units; according to some of the beta testers this is where the real skill lies.
So what happens if, god forbid, the defender decides he'll throw catapults in too? Well...don't bother taking the city. Try what's called a "choke" and ummm...you know...choke his economy. Real effective. Basically you have a really neat looking combat system with all these fancy upgrades that really do nothing. Defense is king in this game except very early on which brings me to my next point.
Rushing...the hallmark of RTS games. While this isn't a bad thing, the difference is that in RTS games you have this thing called economy that slows down your rush. In Civ4 you have this thing called luck of the strategic resources that determines whether you can rush, defend a rush, or die to a rush. In addition, without ZOC you can't play map control or fortify that weak warrior on a hill and hope to defeat a chariot. Basically just hope you have the resources to stop the rush, or hope you have the resources to do a rush yourself. Since expansion is really difficult you can't try to outexpand the guy. Your options are so limited it's ridiculous. I can't put into words how idiotic I feel the developers are. What were you thinking? You got rid of things that make up the strategy in TBS games (ZOC, offensive and defensive values, map control through terrain) and then combined it with features from AOC (rushing, counter units) but without the skill that made those kinds of things fun to end up with this bland mass that makes gaining any sort of lead on your opponent impossible. It gets better.
The point system is huge in MP play. Points determine who wins the game when the turns run out. Well the way they set it up makes it so that even the worst player in the world will still stay in the game. Yes, that's right, all you have to do is build a few cities, throw out some workers and throw them on automate, and put units your ciites and you will hang at least half way through the game until the guy gets catapults. Why? Because military has no bearing on points. In addition, culture and city size are huge point gainers. So not only can you not expand much faster than the other guy, but you can't kill him through military and now he can even win just by sitting back and growing. FUN! "But there's so many options to improve your terrain, it's just so 'deep'!" Deep seems to be the word I hear alot, and I admit, I thought it was deep too. But when you get right down to it, you don't need more than maybe 1 or 2 farms to grow big. All you need is towns to keep up the upkeep and build a wonder or something. Hell, do whatever you want as long as you defend properly you'll stay in the game. So really the depth of the economy isn't really so deep after all.
Anyone who says this isn't based on age of empires is full of ****. Even the map seeder is the SAME as age of empires. I have already played 2 ladder games on the same "random" map. Basically what they wanted was to speed the game up and bring in the average player. They dumbed down the strategy and upped the military factor while having no military micro of a RTS...the perfect casual gamer game. I mean really it's genius as far as marketing goes. ES tried the same thing, they wanted to decrease the micro that was needed in the game in order to bring in the casual player...and Age of Mythology was born. Auto firing TC's, microless units, neato fancy graphics and units, and the wonderful auto-queue that took care of your economy for you. Pissed off all the loyal fans, but it sold pretty good.
So, in conclusion, this isn't really civilization anymore. This needs to have its own franchise because it's no longer a TBS...but it's not an RTS either. I find the game fun right now only because I am still trying to find that way to get ahead...but as time goes on and I realize there really is no way to get ahead I'm going to realize that there is no point to playing this game competitively multiplayer. Since the single player isn't really difficult at all...I have to ask myself if I will even be playing this game a month from now. What we have here is a cheap rip off of an old game combined with the basic ideas of another old game spliced together with some nifty graphics (at least by civ standards) and rushed out chalked full of bugs. Maybe I'm wrong and there's some secret to this game that adds all the depth and strategy in the world, but I just don't see it.
I played civ2 for 10 years, I loved the game and I was number 1 on the ladder for 3 years straight. I played Age of Empires 2: The Conquerors for 4 years and I was a top US player. I know both games extremely well. Where to begin?
First the combat system in civ4 is very different in that there is no longer a defense value, it is just a general strength value that is modified by upgrades and defensive bonuses. In addition you now have a rock, paper scissors system, just like in AOC where you have the counter system. The problem comes in with the fact that Civ4 isn't AOC...obvious right? Well the counter system in AOC worked because AOC had this thing called unit micro; it was a god damn TBS game. You had spears being microed against scouts, archers against spears, skirms against archers, etc. Well in civ4 there isn't that, the unit that is attacking automatically attacks the unit that counters it in the defending stack making the counter system completely mindless. In addition we lack the features that made TBS...well, strategy. We don't have ZOC, we don't have offensive values and defensive values. We have just one flat rate with insane defensive values awarded to units in cities. You're talking 25% for fortification, 60% for city bonus, 20% for each city defense upgrade on archers, and we aren't even talking about a city with walls and on a hill. Obviously if you do the math you'll see that the city raider upgrade isn't **** compared to the defensive bonus. In comes the catapult, the unit we all screamed was useless in civ3. Now it does collateral damage to stacks, and it just happens to be the ONLY way to defeat a stack. Are you with me? Yes, that means you can't take any properly defended cities until you get construction which is about half way through a typical 150 turn limit game on Quick. So now you have a very obvious "strategy" evolving which I like to call the stack and cat. Just throw together a mass of units and march right on in. Oh, and don't forget to use a "combined arms" force in order to "counter" their units; according to some of the beta testers this is where the real skill lies.
So what happens if, god forbid, the defender decides he'll throw catapults in too? Well...don't bother taking the city. Try what's called a "choke" and ummm...you know...choke his economy. Real effective. Basically you have a really neat looking combat system with all these fancy upgrades that really do nothing. Defense is king in this game except very early on which brings me to my next point.Rushing...the hallmark of RTS games. While this isn't a bad thing, the difference is that in RTS games you have this thing called economy that slows down your rush. In Civ4 you have this thing called luck of the strategic resources that determines whether you can rush, defend a rush, or die to a rush. In addition, without ZOC you can't play map control or fortify that weak warrior on a hill and hope to defeat a chariot. Basically just hope you have the resources to stop the rush, or hope you have the resources to do a rush yourself. Since expansion is really difficult you can't try to outexpand the guy. Your options are so limited it's ridiculous. I can't put into words how idiotic I feel the developers are. What were you thinking? You got rid of things that make up the strategy in TBS games (ZOC, offensive and defensive values, map control through terrain) and then combined it with features from AOC (rushing, counter units) but without the skill that made those kinds of things fun to end up with this bland mass that makes gaining any sort of lead on your opponent impossible. It gets better.
The point system is huge in MP play. Points determine who wins the game when the turns run out. Well the way they set it up makes it so that even the worst player in the world will still stay in the game. Yes, that's right, all you have to do is build a few cities, throw out some workers and throw them on automate, and put units your ciites and you will hang at least half way through the game until the guy gets catapults. Why? Because military has no bearing on points. In addition, culture and city size are huge point gainers. So not only can you not expand much faster than the other guy, but you can't kill him through military and now he can even win just by sitting back and growing. FUN! "But there's so many options to improve your terrain, it's just so 'deep'!" Deep seems to be the word I hear alot, and I admit, I thought it was deep too. But when you get right down to it, you don't need more than maybe 1 or 2 farms to grow big. All you need is towns to keep up the upkeep and build a wonder or something. Hell, do whatever you want as long as you defend properly you'll stay in the game. So really the depth of the economy isn't really so deep after all.
Anyone who says this isn't based on age of empires is full of ****. Even the map seeder is the SAME as age of empires. I have already played 2 ladder games on the same "random" map. Basically what they wanted was to speed the game up and bring in the average player. They dumbed down the strategy and upped the military factor while having no military micro of a RTS...the perfect casual gamer game. I mean really it's genius as far as marketing goes. ES tried the same thing, they wanted to decrease the micro that was needed in the game in order to bring in the casual player...and Age of Mythology was born. Auto firing TC's, microless units, neato fancy graphics and units, and the wonderful auto-queue that took care of your economy for you. Pissed off all the loyal fans, but it sold pretty good.
So, in conclusion, this isn't really civilization anymore. This needs to have its own franchise because it's no longer a TBS...but it's not an RTS either. I find the game fun right now only because I am still trying to find that way to get ahead...but as time goes on and I realize there really is no way to get ahead I'm going to realize that there is no point to playing this game competitively multiplayer. Since the single player isn't really difficult at all...I have to ask myself if I will even be playing this game a month from now. What we have here is a cheap rip off of an old game combined with the basic ideas of another old game spliced together with some nifty graphics (at least by civ standards) and rushed out chalked full of bugs. Maybe I'm wrong and there's some secret to this game that adds all the depth and strategy in the world, but I just don't see it.
Seeing Imran's first post right after Boris... I knew there'd be trouble.
.
Comment