Civilization IV

[frogbeastegg]

I never much liked civ 3; I played it quite a bit for a couple of weeks without really enjoying it but falling for the 'one more turn' thing. There were so many concepts I found silly, so many things which I thought should have been fixed or advanced upon which were not, and so many wonderful ideas from Alpha Centauri which were not included, making civ 3 feel far more primitive and backwards. Within a month it was shelved, never to be touched again.

I'm still playing civ 4 and I've been enjoying it from the start. It is a much better game than any other in the series IMO. I like the religious aspect, the way city maintenance is handled, the lack of insane corruption and inter-continental city sprawl. The civic system is brilliant! Just like the same system in Alpha Centauri. Combat is improved too; I like the rock/paper/scissors thing it has going. The AI's have personality, which makes things interesting; they aren't a bunch of identikit generic AIs differentiated only by their colours. The different civs feel unique when you play them too. Wonders are less important, which I also like. There are many ways to play the game, it honestly does feel like it. That’s not just many ways to win, but many ways to play. I like the way resources are handled this time around, and the way paving the entire world in railroads is no longer necessary or even a good idea.

That bad … Nemoy’s quotes are rubbish; bland and he sounds so bored. The wonder movies are also a bit crap; boring even the first time I saw them (not that I ever really cared about wonder movies, but it seems to be an important thing for many). The early stages of the game are very quiet because there is no music; I don’t like the music for the later ages of the game. The interface takes a bit of getting used to. All that is mostly window dressing

Froggy like.


The terra map is supposed to be our world, with various sizes available. I would suppose the largest version would be the most accurate. I haven't played any of them yet.

[econ21]

I agree with most of what Frogbeastegg said - CivIV is a very good game.

I played Civ2 a lot - got to the stage where I could win on Deity. It was incredibly addictive, but for some reason I never felt I was really enjoying it. I haven't had that experience with any other game. I guess there was a compelling technical challenge, but it was not emotionally satisfying.

I loathed Civ3 and never really gave it a chance. I hated the corruption limit on your empire size and I hated the incredibly slow, characterless combat (I remember moving a horde of troops a square a year and the AI doing the same - it was horrible).

Civ4 is just as compelling as Civ2. I don't buy the argument that it has been dumbed down or over-simplified. They have got rid of some of the stupid micromanagement (checking each city each turn to make sure it would not revolt). But they have added some interesting complexity - eg unit promotions and more of a rock-scissors-paste combat system. In all essentials, I find the game plays remarkably like Civ2 - which is why some folk in this thread have given up on it, saying it is just the same game they've played to death.

But the big difference for me is that this time, the game is really fun! I am not sure exactly why. The combat system is part of it. It was really fun trying to survive a Russian tank onslaught when I had no oil and had to try to kill tanks through human waves and cultivating elite marines with AT promotions. Even the ancient and especially medieval wars are more fun, and more viable, than they were in Civ2 when you tended to hold fire until the end of the game. The combat system is also finely balanced so that quality counts, but can be worn down by quantity unless you are very smart/lucky. You care about your individual units in a way that you don't in Total War games.

The eye-candy is another reason it is fun this time - I thought the game was only so-so until I discovered an option to show the unit animations. More generally, the game has a lot of enjoyable chrome. Being rewarded with a William Shakespeare Great Artist carrying Yorick's skull, who can throw his hands up in a dramatic guesture and "culture bomb" an enemy city is just great fun. The AI characters have personality - not necessarily immature. Ghandhi is a benign type who I would be loathe to mistreat, Isabella of Spain is an infuriating religious zealot, Montezuma is a suicidal nut-job and neighbour from hell etc. I actually like the Spock quotes - he's not bored, he's Spock. The music is pretty good, with the opening music being amazing.

Perhaps the other reason why the game is more fun this time is that it is as challenging as Civ2, but maybe gives you more choice among strategies. In Civ2, I always did essentially the same thing and was guaranteed a win. In this game, it seems more unpredictable what wonders you will get and how things will turn out. I think it is also much more challenging. I think I am playing on Prince, one step up from the "fair" Noble, and finding the AI quite competitive enough. I have no intention of upping the difficulty level further.

I actually have a confession to make. I am currently playing the Europa Barbarorum mod and it is everything we were promised in historical accuracy and in improving the challenge of the game. But I still hanker back to my last unfinished Civ4 game - it was more tense, more exciting and just much more fun.

[frogbeastegg]

On the quotes, that is another area AC spoiled me. The tech quotes in that game were great. For those who didn't play, you can see some of the best here. I liked the musings, the philosophy, the in-game humour, the bits of history both real and invented for the game's background, and the voice actors were amongst the best I've encountered in a game.

Compared to those [bored sounding droning voice]Pig iron. Pig iron. I got pig iron.[/voice] is no good at all. I don't like Star Trek, I don't like Spock, and I'd rather have a narrator who sounds like he cares than someone famous who sounds like he can't even be bothered. It's not an interesting quote in the first place, anyway. Most of them aren't.

But it's a minor thing overall.


The unit promotions, on the other hand, how could I forget them? I love them! Specialisation ...

[Pindar]

Thank you for the replies gentlemen. My first experience with the Civ. series was version III. I was really surprised by how "un-fun" it was while still having that mentioned "well, one more turn" quality. I actually bought an expansion to it: I don't remember the title "empires" or something where the focus was various ages of the world. I liked that idea, but the game still suffered from the earlier mentioned qualities of the base game. Obviously, I haven't bought the new IV, but am a little interested based on the comments.

Simon: the EB mod. is out? I have been playing RTR and recently the new big BI mod by Attila over at TW Center. What are the differences between EB and RTR?

[Vladimir]

The corruption issue in Civ 3 was easily solved by using the edit feature where you could tweak various options, colors, etc. The only "disadvantage" I’ve found was that you needed more cities to build the Forgotten Something-or-Other which you needed less. If I had talent or desire I might find that the bland AI could be modified too. Soon I'll be able to afford upgrades for the ancient chimera I call my PC so I'll check IV out. I do prefer to wait for any patches/mods and for the first price drop. Thanks to all for your great reviews.

[Ironside]

The ones in SMAC is very hard to beat, although I missed this one from that list:
I think, and my thoughts cross the barrier into the synapses of the machine, just as the good doctor intended. But what I cannot shake, and what hints at things to come, is that thoughts cross back. In my dreams, the sensibility of the machine invades the periphery of my consciousness: dark, rigid, cold, alien. Evolution is at work here, but just what is evolving remains to be seen.

Commissioner Pravin Lal
"Man and Machine"


And this one, the scariest one IMO.

Mary had a little lamb,
Little lamb little lamb,
Mary had a little lamb,
whose fleece was white as snow.

Assassins' Redoubt
Final Transmission


And what that makes the above one scary is that Assassins' Redoubt is a Spartan base (the most militant faction) and that you get psi attack with that tech.
Somehow is destroying the mind of a person worse than killing him. For me atleast .

I did find a more complete list anyway SMAC quotes

Back on topic for Civ 4, it's fun, but I still miss surrendering factions from SMAC.

[Dutch_guy]

I'm considering to buy this game, though I do have some questions about it, since I have never played a Civilization game before.

what is combat like in Civ4 ?

Is the game about collecting enough resources to pound your enemies or is resource gathering not a first priority in the game ?

Is there a lot of micro management involved, more or less than MTW/RTW ?

How good is the diplomacy, do alliances last, does the AI know how to manage it's alliances ?

Is the AI any good, in your opinions, does it - as an example - refuse to a ceasfire while it has but one settlement left ?

How steep is the learning curve of the game,more like HOI 2 or MTW/RTW?

And finally I have a more technical question to ask of you.
I've downloaded the Demo, installed it , then tried to play it..however after double clicking and you can see it loading, a window pops up saying that an error has occurred and then proceeds to ask me if I want to report it to microsoft or not.
The problem occurs while Civ4 is checking XML, it always orders me to terminate the loading at that point.
Has anyone heard of this problem if so , does anyone know how to fix this?

if it helps, these are my specs.
Intel pentium 4 COU 2.66 GHz.
512 MbRam
Direct X 9.0c
NVIDIA Geforce 4 MX 440 with AGP8X


thanks in advance.

[econ21]

Simon: the EB mod. is out? I have been playing RTR and recently the new big BI mod by Attila over at TW Center. What are the differences between EB and RTR?

[We're heading a little off-topic here, but I hope frogbeastegg will indulge us:] EB is out as an open beta. I was a little shocked at how incomplete it is - I am currently wondering whether to give up my EB Roman campaign due to CTDs - whereas RTR has always seemed amazingly polished to me.

EB and RTR are aiming at very similar things with the units and battle system - and they both hit their targets superbly IMO. If you've looked at the faction previews in the past for EB, you'll have a good idea of what to expect and won't be disappointed (although RTR has spoiled the water a little by producing similarly good units for some factions - eg Rome and now Germany). Both mods are also doing similar things with limiting recruitment to homelands etc. As a result, the games feel more authentic at both tactical and strategic levels; and are aesthetically very nice.

The pleasant shock I had with EB was how much they were trying to change other aspects of the game. They use scripting to pump up the AI and alter general's traits in very fun ways etc etc. As a result, it is more ambitious and I think more challenging than RTR.

Both EB and RTR share the same fault, IMO, of being a little glacial in play speed. RTR because it increases the province number; EB because it has 4 turns a season - I think you have to play 1000 turns to get the Marian reforms. Whereas in Civ, you are always tempted to go for another turn, with the RTW mods, I am often tempted to take a break.

[econ21]

I can't help with your technical problem, but here's some opinions on your other questions:

what is combat like in Civ4 ?

I think it is fun. You attack with one unit at a time, but you can have stacks of units with different strengths and the best defender will meet the attacker. So if a knight attacks a stack, it will be met by its pikeman rather than a vulnerable missile unit. This is balanced by the ability of artillery to damage multiple units in a stack. Units strength gradually deteriorates, so a tank may crush one infantry but may be destroyed if attacked consecutively by three or four. There's a fair variety of units - for example, in the medieval period, you have longbows, crossbows, knights, horse archers, macemen, pikemen, catapults etc. Each faction has its own unique unit - praetorians and redcoats being the standouts, IMO. Units gain experience and can use it to buy some very nice, but generally context specific upgrades (eg +25% attacking in cities; or the an AT bonus etc). That means they have individuality and you treasure your veterans (who can be upgraded overtime, from lowly warrior to mech infantry).

Is the game about collecting enough resources to pound your enemies or is resource gathering not a first priority in the game ?

I think it is essentially a building game. You build up your cities, and they provide you with units and technology (to make better units and better city buildings). Nurturing good cities is the first piority of the game, but it is not resource gathering in a twitch RTS sense. It is rather cerebral and all about trade-offs and choices - you'll agonise over where exactly to put your cities, so they get access to the many things they need to thrive. Combat adds a necessary element of danger, for me, but it is not a wargame in the way TW is, and I like trying to survive combat but don't seek it out.

Is there a lot of micro management involved, more or less than MTW/RTW ?

More micromanagement, I guess, but I find the turns seem to fly past more quicky. I guess TW bogs down in the battles, which are very time consuming. In Civ, you can be at peace for 500 years or so, and whereas that would be deadly dull in TW, in Civ4 I find it very rewarding. Largely, this is because the AI is often biting at your heels and threatening to invade you, so peaceful survival is non-trivial.

How good is the diplomacy, do alliances last, does the AI know how to manage it's alliances ?

I like it. You can keep the "nice" civs onside throughout the game - a diplomatic victory is one way of winning the game. There are some predictable headbangers, but if you are superior in power, they will tend to keep away.

Is the AI any good, in your opinions, does it - as an example - refuse to a ceasfire while it has but one settlement left ?

I think the AI is great. I thought that about Civ2 as well - Civ has one of the most competitive AIs of any strategy games. Far better than TW. On harder difficulty levels, you are always holding your breath, to see if you can keep ahead of the AI in tech and if you can deterr attack. Somehow the challenge is also maintained throughout the game - no mean feat, considering the "broken" endgames of TW. To give you one example of smart AI - in my first game, the Japanese attacked me by land and sea in the feudal era. I beat off both attacks, but when the dust had settled, I realised they had destroyed my only two bronze mines (needed to make good troops). The AI was so smart and the dumb human hadn't even realised what was being done to him...

How steep is the learning curve of the game,more like HOI 2 or MTW/RTW?

Easy to learn, hard to master? I think it is very accessible and intuitive - you can pretty much leap in. But as you explore, you will find a lot of depth to the game. Probably like TW. I have not played HOI, but my impression is that Paradox games tend to emphasis realism whereas Civ is like a cartoon representation of history. They may both be complex, but a Paradox game may tend to have messy complexity - because reality is messy - whereas Civ2 can be more elegant.

[NodachiSam]

I always appreciate your writing Simon. I bought Civ 3 but was terribly unhappy after awhile yet like someone else said it still had an inexplicable just one more turn quality. One of my friends really seems to like it and a few people here seem to.

I really want to get my hands on Alpha Centauri for some reason. I'd love it if they had a demo so I could try it somehow first lest I buy it and be rendered very dissapointed.

[frogbeastegg]

So no one has an excuse for missing out on AC, here's a link to a page with the demo.

Now go try it! And then buy the game! It's old, it was never pretty even in its own day, but in some things it is unsurpassed. Try and get the version of AC with the expansion bundled in with it; that's the version I have (Sid Meier's Planetry Pack). The expansion itself is as rare as hen's teeth with gold fillings.

[Efrem]

Theres an expansion!!!

Damn I don't have that.

[Shahed]

Thanks to this thread I bought the game. Great thread. Only I was so eager I did'nt notice if it's in Dutch or English, hopefully there is an English option ! :D This is going to be a much needed gaming Saturday night!

[Lanemerkel1]

I hate Civilization III

even on the smallest map you almost have to have two heads 4 arms and a crapload of patience to get anything done (A.K.A. too much management needed)

[Shahed]

Two Words:

Excellent game!

Two problems:
-The manual is in Dutch! (game has language options thankfully) Is there a place I can download it in English ?
-I want to use a cheat to see the whole map at the beginning of the first turn. Right now I'mnot that great and @ 1500 I'm still using Spearmen *ahem* so I'd prefer to use a no fog cheat to decide if I can actually play THAT map or not before I spend hours going to prehistoric eras. :)

Thanks for all the comments and thanks for your help.

[Voigtkampf]

Could someone post some interesting screenshots from your games?

[Dutch_guy]

So I finally got the game, the full version.

My first impressions so far is that it is a time consuming game - in a good way.
It is nothing like other games I've played thus far, and that is a good thing.

However, I do have a question concerning tactics;

What are your starting ''moves'', meaning , what do you built / train the first few moves.

What are good,basic skills to survive the initial stage of the game.

What Civics do you usually choose,and why ?

How do you succesfully attack and destroy enemy villages ( in the early ages ),any tips concerning the sieging of those enemy city's ?

Also. Thanks you Simon for your perfect answers to my questions

[econ21]

What are your starting ''moves'', meaning , what do you built / train the first few moves.

I am a believer in the "worker chop" strategy. Start by training a worker and researching bronze working. Around the time the worker is ready, you should have the technology to chop down forests. If you do this, you get around 45 production hammers. This can greatly speed up your training of subsequent units and so almost eliminate the city stagnation that occurs while training settlers and workers.

So, using worker chop, I tend to train "worker, settler, warrior" and repeat, until I have around 6 cities. The settler builds a new city and the warrior escorts him; the worker does the "worker chop" routine around the new city.

I tend to make one city (not my capital), my army training city, so that gets a barracks. I also try to get some early wonders - I like the parthenon and the oracle. Hence, my capital will tend to build wonders and some other city, ideally one near flood plains, produce the settlers.

What are good,basic skills to survive the initial stage of the game.

Not sure what you mean by skills? Player strategies? Or in-game technologies? Either way, you will soon face an on-rush of barbarians, often wielding axes. So you need a defence. I like to meet fire with fire and so build my own axemen - others like archers but they don't stop barbarians destroying your mines etc - so I need to find copper and mine it asap. Reducing the fog of war and getting territory bordering AI factions eliminates the spawning of barbarians, so it is a relatively short window of threat in most cases.

Thereafter, the threat is the AI nations. Discovering a religion and sending missionaries to convert your neighbours is one way of making friends (discovering a religion and leaving your neighbours with a different religion is one way of making enemies). The AI tends to have around 4 units per city, so I guess you could do likewise to reduce the threat. I play a more high-wire act and have a weak military (I like butter, not guns), which makes the game scarey.

If war does come, I find having a good road network the key to a successful defence. You need mobility, especially if - like me - you start off with a small military.

In terms of technologies, after bronze working, I aim to be the first to discover a religion (sometimes I get Hinduism, but usually it is Judaism). Try to get the oracle for a free technology. Then I rush for alphabet. When I have it, I trade techs to backfill my technologies. But I do not trade alphabet, so I keep a monopoly on tech trades. Later on, whenever I discover a new tech, I see if I can trade it, to keep a tech lead. On Prince, I usually keep a tech lead until around the time of biology, when the AI starts to overtake me.

What Civics do you usually choose,and why ?

I never worry too much with civics. Generally, you should end up with the most advanced civics by the end of the game (although I forgo environmentalism and free religion), but there is no rush as they often reward only end-game situations (e.g. lots of towns). Organised religion is a priority early on, while I am spreading my own discovered religion. Later, I like pacificism, because with the parthenon and a philosophical Civ, you get lots of Great People. Representation is great in the early game, when you tend to have only around 5 significant cities anyway. The economic civics come too late to concern me much and the legal ones are a bit uninspiring, although bureaucracy is handy as my capital ends up building most of my wonders and being my science powerhouse.

How do you succesfully attack and destroy enemy villages ( in the early ages ),any tips concerning the sieging of those enemy city's ?

I generally don't bother attacking cities until I get catapults. If I am attacked, I just aim to throw back the attacker (kill off one or two offensives and they will sue for peace) - not to counter-invade. You could rely on swordsmen but it would be too painful (unless you are Roman). When you get catapults, it's just a question of being methodical. Bring four catapults, then pound the defences to zero. Then do kamikaze attacks with your catapults to cause collateral damage to the defenders and mop up the survivors with axemen/macemen/whatever. Choosing the right promotions - ie city raider - helps and bear in mind that gunpowder units don't get city raider, so treasure your old city raider warriors etc which can become killer units in the late game.

[Pindar]

Simon,

Thanks for your replies to my questions on EB and Civ. IV. I think I'll hold off on EB until they are closer to a finished product. Civ. IV sounds very interesting. I may have to go buy it.

[frogbeastegg]

Could someone post some interesting screenshots from your games?

Not sure what you mean by interesting, but here is one showing the truth behind the pig resource ...


Sometimes when you order a worker to build an improvement on a resource square you end up with some funny looking arrangements.

[Voigtkampf]

Nevermind that request, couldn't start my game, XML issues on my new computer, long story, needed some pics for my article.

[Dutch_guy]

Voigtkampf, I had the infamous XML problem.

Try patching up to the most recent version of the game.

If that does not work, try this :

If game stops at xml error, xml parser error, or something something similar, download ms xml parser v3.0 sp5.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

(The download links are at the bottom)

[player1]

Could empting the cashe help?
(holding shift after initialization many appears, then game will load uncached XML data)

[Voigtkampf]

Voigtkampf, I had the infamous XML problem.

Try patching up to the most recent version of the game.

If that does not work, try this :

If game stops at xml error, xml parser error, or something something similar, download ms xml parser v3.0 sp5.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

(The download links are at the bottom)

Thanks, but I've been there, done that (and several other things) but no go. It works on my other PC and laptop fine, though, so no biggie.

[econ21]

Nevermind that request, couldn't start my game, XML issues on my new computer, long story, needed some pics for my article.

Is that a review article, voigtkampf? If so, just out of interest, what's your take on Civ4? I don't want you to reprint your article but broadly speaking do you give it a thumbs up or thumbs down?

[Voigtkampf]

I think nobody who loves strategies will make a mistake if getting Civ4. Like the usual Civ experience, plus few new additions, make-overs and similar. All in all, I say go. I will.

[econ21]

All in all, I say go. I will.

Good man!

[Proletariat]

I love watching a large stacked army I spent a dozen turns creating and positioning being utterly annihilated by two frigging longbow units.



Fun game, but really I hope I'm just being a n00b with my siege tactics so far.

[Ironside]

I love watching a large stacked army I spent a dozen turns creating and positioning being utterly annihilated by two frigging longbow units.



Fun game, but really I hope I'm just being a n00b with my siege tactics so far.

It's called more catapults, more catapults and did I mention more catapults? Get that bonus defence to zero before even trying to assult the city.

Well you only need one catapult (or any other form of artillery), but it will take you a while to get that defence bonus so low that it's worth attacking the city.

[econ21]

I love watching a large stacked army I spent a dozen turns creating and positioning being utterly annihilated by two frigging longbow units.

Civ4 has quite a marked "rock-paper-scissors" type combat system - I think seemingly lowly longbow units are the best city defenders until gunpowder. As Ironside says, catapults are the counter with perhaps city-raiding macemen being the units to go through the breach.