Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[Blake]

Hmmm that might actually be a valid "complaint", if you expand so fast, with a decent sum of gold, you could expand beyond the point where 0% science can pay for your city upkeep, since the game forces 0% science in such a situation you can't do any research to get economy boosters or better civics. If you managed to expand fast enough the only way your civ would ever get back in the black is after your entire army has been disbanded AND some of your bases have been taken by other civs or barbarians. (which is pretty cool in itself)

But given that the game is economically forgiving on lower difficulty levels, and the AI hampers expansion on higher difficulty levels, I can't see anyone having enough space to do that, unless they actually try Civ2/SMAC style ICS.

But this becomes a "My favorite strategy that always works doesn't work so the game is broken, WHAAAAAA" complaint.

[Nacht]

You have to expand VERY fast to be forced to a 0% science rate.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Nacht
You have to expand VERY fast to be forced to a 0% science rate.

And trying would kill you tech-wise and military-wise anyway. It's a dumb thing to do, period.

[siredgar]

Okay, I am mature enough to admit that you've made some very good points to each of my complaints.

For example, I do not remember the text about evolution in Civ1. If that is so, then so be it. But the intro still sucks. The graphics are terrible. I think we can all agree on that.

And perhaps you and I disagree about the finer points of the game (labeling "Arabian Empire", etc.)... (By the way, there are no Asian leaders in the rankings list at the end. Trust me, I am not all about being PC. But why revert back to the named rankings of Civ1 when the system in Civ3 was just fine.)

But I just don't think this is as fun and yes, I have many interface text mistakes. Doesn't your initial screen say something like "Greeting_Intro.SAV1"? I don't remember exactly as I don't have the game on right now. But there were a lot of those and some pop-ups at odd moments that disappeared and almost made me feel the game was going to stop, but it didn't. I'm not talking about the Civilopedia.

Yes, I know where the science/gold slider is and used it. But I must have expanded too fast. There was no chance for me to revert back. I had a healthy economy the whole time and then suddenly I got into -17 and then -31 per turn.

I tried to place cities more than two squares away and it didn't work.

The tape at the end is no good. It just looks like crap. I think it's even worse than the one in Civ3 and it includes the water around the land (in a slightly different shade) which makes it confusing.

I am not saying this is my final opinion on the game. I am just giving my first impression. And it just doesn't have the same feel as the rest of the series.

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Nacht
You have to expand VERY fast to be forced to a 0% science rate.

I was playing the Mongols and expanded very fast. My score was at least 50% higher than anyone else on the continent. This was Noble level. It seemed too sudden that I went from having a lot of gold and then being forced to 0% and getting negative 31 gold per turn. Very unforgiving and no warning really at all. My city expansion seemed to be just fine.

[Datajack Franit]

The only time I was forced to go at 0% I was stuck on a dead continent away from the other civs. Luckily I was able to complete the Oracle, chose Theology and waited other civs to send their caravels in. When it happened I flooded their continents with Christianity and started to receive +40 gold at turn from converted cities.

[Nacht]

Originally posted by siredgar
You can't build cities wherever you want, which is overall a good thing because I didn't like the way the AI would find a little empty space within your territory and found a city. But it also really limits the spacing between cities. There was plenty of empty space where I wanted to found a city, but it wouldn't let me.

Originally posted by siredgar
I tried to place cities more than two squares away and it didn't work.

These statements are confusing me, you can't place cities more than two tiles away

You can place cities everywere, except in someone elses territory.

[xxFlukexx]

Wahhh, wahhh I lost a game of Civ4, wahhh wahh the game sucks.

GeForce 3? Rofl, how about you shell out $75 and join us in 2005, eh buddy?

oh yeah, wahh I never read the manual, wahh I built so many cities I went bankrupt, wahh I don't read any descriptions of anything.

Want a rattle, baby?

[Robert]

About city-placing, I wonder if the thread starter thinks that he can only build cities within the blue circles?
Those are suggested places! Not the only places you can build cities!

[Urban Ranger]

Wow, a tough bunch we have here.

Anyway, Civ 4 is very different from the rest of the series, so you may want to take it slow. Perhaps play through the tutorial and play the first few games on "settler" level.

[LzPrst]

i agree on some points. theres a thread for the whole game is too fast thingy. and yes. I too feel the game is somewhat incomplete and it becomes boring rather fast. dearmads mod might help to alleviate some of this, but basically, the game is actually less catchy than the previous versions.
the advisors are quite useless IMO, with a few exceptions.
considering bugs, I've never had one... this game has run smooth as silk and cool as air on my machine. my 2 flatmates have not been as lucky.

most of the changes are for the better. i like the way the health\happiness system is done. but overall, i dont feel the game has enough flavour. its kinda like eating at a fastfood joint. its a little bland and you finish it quickly, compared to a decent restaurant, where you get a good meal, a dessert and a cup of coffee while you wait. civ hasnt really been like the last experience for a long time now...

[GodSpawn]

Well, my subjective opinion is that Civ IV is BETTER than Civ III. I'm enjoying it more than Civ III. Civ II kept me up too late at night, Civ III didn't - but Civ IV does it again!

I can't really put my finger on why Civ IV is better; I think it's just a host of small details. But better it is. (For me)

[kptb]

Originally posted by siredgar


I was playing the Mongols and expanded very fast. My score was at least 50% higher than anyone else on the continent. This was Noble level. It seemed too sudden that I went from having a lot of gold and then being forced to 0% and getting negative 31 gold per turn. Very unforgiving and no warning really at all. My city expansion seemed to be just fine.

I noticed that the maintainance for a city heavily depends on the distant from the capital (or Forbidden Palace or Versailles), so all in a sudden getting a -31 just means that your last city was insanely far away from any center of government. I do not yet know whether I like this system or the old corruption better. In Civ3 a new city in a far away place was not dragging your empire down too much, it just did not contribute. However, this way your exploits of AI weaknesses are somewhat limited; in other words, we have to find better ways of beating the AI.

I think that the game is fun, for the most part. The other part I am still learning about and reserve judgenment.

[SpencerH]

I think CIV4 is an amazing improvement on what appeared to me to be a dying series. IMO it ranks with the original and may be superior to SMAC (which is saying an awful lot).

So far I've found the game to be amazingly challenging and a huge departure from the strategy that won earlier versions. I won on chieftan easily. Then got blitzed twice on noble for not understanding the changes to combat well enough. I paid more attention to unit improvement but still lost 2 more close space race games. In my current game I looked to be off to a good start in a good location (I seem to spawn near an awful lot of desert) but have run into at least 3 barbarian cities spitting out axemen while I have only quechas.

As for nimoy and the wonder movies. I listened once or twice then turned him off as well as the music. The movies are next to go.

[Aro]

Re: Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

Originally posted by siredgar


The quotes by Leonard Nemoy are totally inane.