Anyone else severely disappointed in Civ4? (RANT)

[Mace]

I think that the original poster of this thread is judging the game too quickly, with not enough games played.

And also I think that Civ4 is way further along than Civ3 was at this stage in it's development. I feel like Civ3 was a much more refined and "better" game by the time it got to C3C. I expect Civ4 to be even better than it is now, by say, 2 years from now.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dis
I just don't think RTS gamers will ever like a TBS.

Not true. The two groups aren't really that mutually exclusive.

[evizaer]

My rankings:

SMACX - mindblowingly awesome. A civ game with a story (and a reasonably good one at that)! Also, unit designing was great.
Civ4 - Gamplay is better than its predecessors.
Civ2 - This game was amazing, but i find it hard to play without culture/borders.
Civ1 - Awesome game. I spent countless hours playing it.
CtP - Fun game. Somewhat broken, but had some great concepts.
Civ3 - OK game. First game to implement some civ ideas.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by siredgar
Considering I have more posts on here than you, I would more likely think that you are the troll.

Then you're an idiot. Frankly, I'd rather be a troll. Consider: AH, deity, MASTER troll. OTOH he's actually entertaining.

[NanoDingo]

Originally posted by Sirian

Originally posted by NanoDingo

Civ I is a subset of Civ II, even if chronologically it appears to be the other way around?

Not if you played five times as much Civ1 as Civ2, it isn't.

Well, if the only animals you've ever seen are slugs, you could be excused for thinking slugs are not merely a subset of animals.
-

Originally posted by Sirian
One of the things I'm proudest of about Civ4 is the distinct effort to identify the unfun or unbalanced elements of the previous iterations and design new gameplay to overcome these. The idea being to identify what was good and fun, and keep that, plus identify what was not so hot, and replace it with something that (we hoped) would do better.

Good intentions, at least.

1. SMAC
2. Civ II
3. Civ I
4. Civ III
5. CtP

Haven't played Civ IV.

[OneWeevil]

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

Originally posted by siredgar
I soon found myself bankrupt from expanding too fast. Yet, there was no way to build a marketplace. What gives?!!

[Caltone]

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

Originally posted by OneWeevil

Amen, if ever there was a case of RTFM ......

So you don't read the manual or do the tutorial and ...

Also some excellent points by Sirian, I loved the nod to Civ1 and this is a very different game than Civ3. The design changes have opened up a ton of new choices and strategies.

I'm hopelessly addicted of course

[Aileron]

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

Originally posted by Bill3000


Hmm. If you just want to hear it, you can look in the audio folder. It won't solve the problem (since it won't be in game), but at least you can hear it.

Thanks, found it, listened to it, I only needed to hear that once anyway. Not sure why they put it where they did in the game. It's like 4 minutes long, but it takes way less than a minute to start the game.

[Aileron]

People seemed to have started ranking TBS games in this thread, so I'll throw in my ranking:

1. CtP
2. Civ4
3. Civ2
4. CtP2
5. Civ3

Yeah, I know I'm a freak, but Civ4 is really close to replacing CtP as my all-time fav. I never played SMAC though, but I might have to take a look at it after seeing so many people here talking about it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Dis


navy is very useful in civ4. Without frigate support my cavalry could never have taken over a city defended by longbowmen. You could use catapult/canon units I suppose. But you sacrifice those. I didn't have to sacrifice my frigates to get city defenses to 0. The only bad thing is they can't cause collateral damage to units . I have to wait for the ultimate weapon: bombers.

Good point about naval bombardment, but as I recall didnt you spend some time floating around on boats and dont you think that may colour your opinion as to the importance of a navy in CIV4 ?

[Dis]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Good point about naval bombardment, but as I recall didnt you spend some time floating around on boats and dont you think that may colour your opinion as to the importance of a navy in CIV4 ?

yes I'm biased. And my map selection leads to more naval use. I play archipelago and continents. never will I play a pangea.

[Sirian]

If you think Navy is irrelevant on Pangaea, you definitely haven't played it much yet.

I have some comments on this topic forthcoming in the yet-to-be-posted sections of my interview with Solver.


- Sirian

[Brad Mayer]

Originally posted by Sirian


They're the original graphics.

You don't have to like the throwback intro, but you are definitely not getting it and missing the point. IT'S THE CIV1 INTRO. If you don't remember it, then you clearly did not play much Civ1.



- Sirian

Oh, so that is why this seeming inane passage is in there! Jokes' on me

I played a lot of Civ1 but I don't remember this intro...perhaps played too much, and it is so long ago that it has been deleted frfom memory...

As for gameplay, Civ4 is looking like a sucess so far , congratulations.

Right now have a game going that I've decided to call "Kublai's Poodle" (That's me). Basically, Kublai is so much stronger and richer than me (at 1520, large map, epic, Monarch). Kublai top ranker, me 8th) that I (Inca) simply do whatever Kublia "requests". Declare war on X, yessir! Convert to religion X, yessir! Don't trade with X, yessir..and so on.

Truly pathetic I know, but I not only survive this way, but am able to keep up reasonably well, approaching renaissane along with the rest. At war, I was able to "camp follow" Kublai'a mighty armies with my, much more humble-sized force , raking in quite a bit of loot plundering our hapless victim's towns with horse archers while he (Fredrick in this case) cowers helplessly in his cities. The loot I then use to upgrade as quickly as possible, while I focus on culture and economy and look for an independent way out of my strategic predicament.

Of course Kublai could probably crush me like a bug ( but not without a fight, I have ~8 cities so am not that tiny) but he's got much stronger strategic rivals to contend with. I'm much more concerned with #2 civ from the other continent (Ceasar), whose caravels keep poking around my coastline. It would be to his advantage to grab my territory as a future base against Kublai...must get Frigates!

Anyway, the point is, Civ4 manages to achieve this, a viable, challenging and enjoyable game without me having to be "#1" (or even #5!). Being #1 and winning is of course a worthy goal, but I like "historical" strategy games not to boost my ego but for the flavor of the "historical" experience. This is the first time I've played a Civ game from a "subaltern" position and not felt like being gratuitiously punished (not enjoyable ), but instead find it enjoyably challenging! It is quite an achievement, bravo!

[Strudo]

In civ1 the intro finished before the game was ready to play also. Just thought I'd point that out since some people may not remember cos they ended up skipping it so often.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Then you're an idiot. Frankly, I'd rather be a troll. Consider: AH, deity, MASTER troll. OTOH he's actually entertaining.

Maybe that guy doesn't know what the forum ranks mean.

Emperor > Prince



of course, I don't know that spam on an internet forum necessarily makes someone better than another person