Who here will give Civ IV a try?

[DrSpike]

Yeah, I do like the surgical strike element, but the techs you need in Civ4 are more extensive, and therefore you do have time to kick the leader a bit.

[Carolus Rex]

So the verdict on Civ 4 is still that it's a good game? Perhaps even more so after tha latest patch?

Carolus

[DrSpike]

The patches haven't done very much for SP yet. But then, there weren't glaring balance problems or bugs out of the box either.

[DaveV]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
So the verdict on Civ 4 is still that it's a good game? Perhaps even more so after tha latest patch?

Yes. I'd recommend trying the demo to make sure your system can run the game. You can also get a good feel for the gameplay in the early game.

[solo]

Yes, Civ IV is not the disappointment that Civ III turned out to be.

Many interesting strategy decisions, a much improved AI, and much less tiresome micro-management. A fine game, but very different from Civ II.

As for longevity, variety, depth and detail, I doubt it will supplant Civ II as the best in the series.

Years from now we probably will not be finding out surprising or new things about Civ IV, as was the case with version II.

For example, the detail and complexity of the Civ II trade system was one feature making that game so good. Trade in Civ IV is much simpler and quite different in its implementation and in my opinion does not offer as much.

However, many of the new features of Civ IV such as civics, religions and great persons have been a great addition.

Civ IV may be the better bet for MP play, since games can progress much faster. However, success in MP may depend too much on one's luck in finding the right strategic resources.

[DrSpike]

I haven't formed an opinion on how history will compare Civ2 to Civ4 yet - it's just too difficult.

However, I don't think that the complexity of the trade model in Civ2 is entirely in it's favour. Sure it means things can be discovered a long time after release, but to be honest many of those things should never have been discoverable and manipulable. Civ4 gives you what you need to form strategy - it doesn't rely on people spending years working out the finer details of things that should actually have been random (or pseudo-random), and would have been if the programmers weren't so lazy.

[Carolus Rex]

Sounds good... I'll get it for sure...

Carolus

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by DrSpike
I haven't formed an opinion on how history will compare Civ2 to Civ4 yet - it's just too difficult.

However, I don't think that the complexity of the trade model in Civ2 is entirely in it's favour. Sure it means things can be discovered a long time after release, but to be honest many of those things should never have been discoverable and manipulable. Civ4 gives you what you need to form strategy - it doesn't rely on people spending years working out the finer details of things that should actually have been random (or pseudo-random), and would have been if the programmers weren't so lazy.

I agree. Take OEDO years. A great piece of research and vital to improve your game play, but surely not intended as a part of the strategy. Civ4 elimnates the pseudo random effect, but adds complexity. Some leaders can have a revolution without anarchy - is this useful enough to give up (say) the extra trade that other leaders have?

Will we still be playing civ4 in ten or twenty years? The jury will be out on that one for a long time yet.

RJM at Sleeper's

[Carolus Rex]

But surely Civ IV (and all games for that matter) has its loopholes, waiting to be discovered and exploited? Not the same ones as Civ 2, of course, but still...

It's just a matter of time, no?

Carolus

[DrSpike]

Well yes and no. Unlike Civ3 the code was rewritten from scratch and (if your computer is new enough) it was pretty great out of the box.

Plus, they've learnt from the fact that people tend to analyse how game factors work ad nauseum. They have given details of, say, the AI friendliness rating. Also, there is far less scope due to micro reducing beaker/production overspill features.

Things will appear for sure, but the playerbase is large and the things that do appear will probably appear early during the patch cycle, rather than many years after the game has been put to one side by the developers.

[solo]

I think, for better or worse, a large factor in Civ II's appeal and longevity is that many players like to analyze how the game factors work and whether they admit it or not, actually enjoy exploiting their discoveries.

As mentioned by RJM, Oedo years are a very good example of this. For sure using Oedo years was an expoit and never a strategic choice, but I never heard any players complain about its almost universal adoption and use.

Instead, the complaints usually came from those who would postpone their revolutions, intending to wait until the next Oedo year, and then forget to begin their revolution when that year arrived!

One could argue that the biggest exploit in Civ II was the use of ICS. Adding more cities became the best "strategy" in almost every situation. You would think that such a simple "solution" for dominating and winning games might have ruined Civ II and led to its quick demise, but this never happened.

Civ IV was designed to eliminate the use of such exploits, and many view this as a big improvement. Instead, an attempt has been made to offer more strategic choices. Time will tell whether some choices or combination of choices are proven to be optimal.

Most of my own experience so far in Civ IV has been limited to OCC games, where a group of us have been experimenting with the different choices. So far, it appears that we are quite limited in the choices that will result in successful OCC games at the higher levels.

At first, we were focusing on traditional OCC games, where the object was to complete a SS first. It quickly became apparent which leader traits were best, which civics choices were best, and which paths through the tech tree were optimal.

Although it has only been a few short months, I have noticed that interest has already waned in SS games and many players have shifted their focus to OCC conquest games or non-OCC games, instead. I think the lack of choices is the main reason why this has happened.

At least in respect to OCC SS games, I think Civ II offered much more depth, variety, detail and playability. Although there appear to be many choices in Civ IV, there ended up be much more choice in deciding how to play OCC games in Civ II. I doubt OCC will ever attract the same amount of interest or activity in Civ IV as it has for so many years in Civ II.

Although the lack of choice in Civ IV seems apparent to me in OCC games, time will tell whether this conclusion can be applied to non-OCC games.

I hope not.

Civ IV is a tremendous improvement over Civ III, and in many ways it can not be compared with Civ II, because they are very different games.

[duke o' york]

I've played the demo a couple of times now, and have twice been frustrated because it crashed when I built Stonehenge. They don't give you an option to turn off wonder screens (that I can find), and this is the point when it crashes!
A shame, because with the Greeks I'd actually put off building Stonehenge until I could find some iron, with the plan to settle there, and get a decent army going, but I never got the chance.
The easy answer is to just stop building wonders - but will this happen when other civs build them?

[rjmatsleepers]

There is a major patch available for the game itself, but not for the demo. I have no idea whether it would solve the problem with the stonehenge video. The reaction to the patch has been generally favourable, but some have reported that it fails to solve particular problems - or introduces new ones.

RJM at Sleeper's

[duke o' york]

Well playing as the Indians, I built the Parthenon and then Stonehenge. I had the same problem with the first wonder, but it managed to rescue itself somehow and I could play on.
I'd love to be able to turn this off and play my full complement of turns.

[DrSpike]

You could buy the game.