Civilization IV

[screwtype]

I really don't like the interface, either. It's alot less intuitive than Civ 3's was. Especially with the lack of good right-click menus.

I believe you can reactivate those menus. It's in the preferences somewhere.

But yeah the interface is less intuitive. The new iconified Civopedia is a step backwards.

[frogbeastegg]

Civ 4 thumped through my letterbox this morning just as I was leaving for work. It nearly crushed my foot.

The manual is the fattest I have seen since Age of Wonders 2, hurrah! And the poster is good too. The disc looks all shiny and disc-like. The box is all box-ish. Hmm, I guess I should install and play it. That generally helps

[doc_bean]

For some reason I got an incredible craving for civ yesterday, so I went out and bought it, even though I've only had civ3 for a year or so and haven't really played it that much...

A couple of quick points about the game

The Tutorial: I started by playing this, digital Sid is scary ! It's pretty buggy too, not a good start.

The interface: I preferred the old Civ3 one, but it isn't that bad

The graphics: prettiest civ game, but that's not saying much, they do the job.

A first quick game: I picked the Mali and played it them on the easiest setting. Don't use the easiest setting ! It provides no challenge what so ever, I got a pretty good idea about the changes though, I quit around 1400AD and went to bed.

The manual: I read most of it this morning, it sure is big ! A couple of translation mishaps and misspellings though. Pretty annoying

A second quick game: I picked the good old US and played on warlord (third difficulty level, just under the fair 'Noble'). I had a comfortable lead on my neighbours throughout the game, I never got involved in a single war. I lost when caesar finished his space ship 2 turns before me (hey I was exploring the game and didn't really concentrate on winning until the end). It seemed a lot easier then Civ3 on a comparable level though, so what if i didn't win, i didn't feel like I got a real challenge either.
A quick game can be finished in an afternoon -, I rather like this. I assume epic is needed if you want to be a serious warmonger though.

[screwtype]

I'm having second thoughts about the game right now. It's probably better than I thought. It just takes you a while to get to grips with the new interface and the new techs and so on.

In fact at this stage, I'm inclined to go out on a limb and say I think it's probably considerably better than Civ3. There seem to be a lot more options and strategies you can employ, like the new Civics for example.

It's a game that really rewards a bit of careful study. A read of the manual, especially the tech tree, doesn't go astray.

[The_Doctor]

I'm having second thoughts about the game right now. It's probably better than I thought. It just takes you a while to get to grips with the new interface and the new techs and so on.

I concare, your excellence.

[econ21]

I've been having some fun playing it hot seat with my son today. The "feel" of it (graphics, I guess) reminds me a lot of Civ3 - it's not the kind of leap that you see from MTW=>RTW (or Civ2=>Civ3). The gameplay also seems very like both games - I can't say I've spotted a single "major" innovation (equivalent to the MTW=>RTW strategy map difference, for example). I guess if you have got a good thing - it feels like Civ2 but with modern production values that my son can accept. I am especially to know there's no extreme corruption (one shield producing cities once you get past 20 or so) like Civ3 as that was very clunky and put me off that iteration a lot.

Small things: I like the diplomacy so far - at least the feedback about why civs like or don't like you. I like the retention of culture, one interesting new feature from Civ2.

The Wonders and some of the old favorite techs I aimed for in Civ2 seem a little watered down - I raced for the Great Library, but it seemed a bit anti-climatic. Ditto monarchy. But I rather this early stage of learning a game and not knowing exactly what I should be prioritising - in Civ2, it got to be like walking a tightrope, trying to nab the key wonders and win on Deity etc. It's nice to be able to blunder around and learn from your mistakes.

The manual is a real old style game manual, full of content. I haven't read thoroughly it yet, but first glance it seems less well laid out than some earlier ones I recall. For example, there's no quick start for Civ vets or even a list of the major changes. The indexing/contents are not ideal, either. I could not find out about "upgrading" units - the in-game content seems to imply you can change a pikeman into a riflemen or something, but I couldn't find it in the units sections of either the basic or advanced parts of the manual.

No real problems with the interface or presentation, except some batt+les - played MP hotseat - aren't shown. As player 1, I just hear my scout has been eaten by wolves or the barbarians attacked my city - I don't see it, which is a pity.

I also haven't heard Leonard Nimoy - I thought he did some voicework for techs? The only speech I've encountered has been Sid in the tutorial.

[Ser Clegane]

I also haven't heard Leonard Nimoy - I thought he did some voicework for techs? The only speech I've encountered has been Sid in the tutorial.

Each time you discover a new tech, Leonard cites a historical quote that fits the discovery.
I am not sure if there is an option to disable it, but by default it seems to be turned on

[screwtype]

I've been having some fun playing it hot seat with my son today. The "feel" of it (graphics, I guess) reminds me a lot of Civ3 - it's not the kind of leap that you see from MTW=>RTW (or Civ2=>Civ3).

I disagree with that. I think the graphics in Civ4 are WAY better than Civ3 and a major step forward. The game's a pleasure to look at now, you couldn't say that about Civ3. Perhaps you just haven't played Civ3 for a while. You might be remembering its graphics as better than they were.

The gameplay also seems very like both games - I can't say I've spotted a single "major" innovation (equivalent to the MTW=>RTW strategy map difference, for example).

I actually think the gameplay changes between Civ3 and 4 are greater than those between MTW and RTW. The campaign map in RTW doesn't add much to the overall gameplay in my view. In fact in some ways it detracts from gameplay.

There are at least two major innovations in Civ4 that come to mind. First is the abolition of corruption. I really hated that feature and so did a lot of gamers. If you read the designers' notes in the manual, corruption was originally introduced to stop the tactic of "ICS" - infinite city spamming, which was an easy way to win the game.

What they've replaced it with instead is a maintenance cost and distance penalty for new cities which I think works very well. In my current campaign for example, I found a large area of undeveloped territory and thought I was made, I started spamming cities in it as fast as possible and then suddenly noticed that my finances were deep in the red! I had to wind my 100% research rate right back to 10% and even now much later in the game I've still only managed to get it back to 50%.

The new system creates an excellent tension between city spamming and financial health, you now have to decide which is more important, or try for a balance. You can still expand your empire of course, but now it depends upon building up your wealth through trade, development, expanding the population in your existing cities and research of appropriate techs. It changes the whole dynamic of the game.

The second major innovation is the introduction of Civics instead of Governments, which gives you a much larger and more flexible set of government conditions you can set or reset. Combine it with the new more flexible research chart, where you no longer have multiple prerequisites for researching certain techs, and you have a far wider range of strategies to choose from in developing your empire.

Apart from these changes there is also the introduction of Great People, which some gamers swear by (I've yet to figure out a way to really exploit them), the introduction of city health as well as happiness, the fact that a single disgruntled citizen no longer brings your entire city to a halt, unit promotions, spread of religion, greater movement for workers, autoexplore for units - yada yada yada. These are early days yet, but I'm finding it a much more compelling package than Civ3.

I am especially to know there's no extreme corruption (one shield producing cities once you get past 20 or so) like Civ3 as that was very clunky and put me off that iteration a lot.

Ditto.

Small things: I like the diplomacy so far - at least the feedback about why civs like or don't like you.

Yeah, that's another good little feature. In terms of pure colour, I find the leader animations quite amusing as well!

I like the retention of culture, one interesting new feature from Civ2.

Not sure what you're referring to here. I never played Civ2.

The Wonders and some of the old favorite techs I aimed for in Civ2 seem a little watered down - I raced for the Great Library, but it seemed a bit anti-climatic. Ditto monarchy. But I rather this early stage of learning a game and not knowing exactly what I should be prioritising - in Civ2, it got to be like walking a tightrope, trying to nab the key wonders and win on Deity etc. It's nice to be able to blunder around and learn from your mistakes.

Yeah, the wonders are completely changed and it's a mistake to go for your old favourites thinking they still grant the same bonuses. I made the same mistake early too, and it's one of the reasons I had the initial impression that the Wonders are not as effective as before.

The new Wonders actually seem to open up new possibilites within the game. I never even bothered trying to win the culture wars in Civ3, but it's clear you could do it in Civ4. So options other than pure conquest are, I think, more viable than they once were. Certainly more viablie than in Civ3, which some players believe is a conquest-centric game.

The manual is a real old style game manual, full of content. I haven't read thoroughly it yet, but first glance it seems less well laid out than some earlier ones I recall. For example, there's no quick start for Civ vets or even a list of the major changes. The indexing/contents are not ideal, either. I could not find out about "upgrading" units - the in-game content seems to imply you can change a pikeman into a riflemen or something, but I couldn't find it in the units sections of either the basic or advanced parts of the manual.

That's a good point, yes I think they forgot to document the upgrading. But you find out soon enough anyhow.

It's nice to have a thick manual in a game for a change. It's almost worth the new game price tag. My guess is that the manual will go electronic for a later discount release.

No real problems with the interface or presentation, except some batt+les - played MP hotseat - aren't shown. As player 1, I just hear my scout has been eaten by wolves or the barbarians attacked my city - I don't see it, which is a pity.

That's a shame to hear. Game designers always seem to do this with hotseat. I think it's something of a poor cousin to MP.

Is it possible to swap Civs halfway through a game using hotseat? That's a feature I like in a game, but it's not often seen anymore.

I also haven't heard Leonard Nimoy - I thought he did some voicework for techs? The only speech I've encountered has been Sid in the tutorial.

I've got Leonard loud and clear. He's not as good as they say he is. But it does add a nice human touch.

I do however have no sound at all during the opening credits and the Wonder anims, since I turned off the in-game sound. That's not how it's supposed to work. The game definitely has some sound issues. Hopefully they can eventually be fixed.

[GoreBag]

A second quick game: I picked the good old US and played on warlord (third difficulty level, just under the fair 'Noble'). I had a comfortable lead on my neighbours throughout the game, I never got involved in a single war. I lost when caesar finished his space ship 2 turns before me (hey I was exploring the game and didn't really concentrate on winning until the end). It seemed a lot easier then Civ3 on a comparable level though, so what if i didn't win, i didn't feel like I got a real challenge either.
A quick game can be finished in an afternoon -, I rather like this. I assume epic is needed if you want to be a serious warmonger though.

You should have nuked his posterior.

[Craterus]

Guess what I just got? Having never asked nor taken an interest in this game...

Very strange. Well, I assume it'll be better than the half-game that I am able to have with BI.

[screwtype]

Guess what I just got? Having never asked nor taken an interest in this game...

Very strange. Well, I assume it'll be better than the half-game that I am able to have with BI.

You may well assume wrong A lot of people are having technical problems with the game.

And I use the word "game" advisedly. The Civ paradigm is more like an exercise in masochism than a real game. After a week of playing it, I'm scratching my head wondering whatever could have possessed me to buy another title in this series after the frustrations of Civ3.

I guess there is the challenge in just trying to beat the darned thing. But it must have about the most tedious gameplay ever. It's just build, build, build, build and build, trying to get a bit of functionality into your cities. There's bugger all action, and almost nothing in the way of crises or challenges to keep you interested or on your toes. Just a slow, relentless grind toward dominance - or, more commonly, defeat. I honestly can't understand why it's so popular. Imperialsim II is a much better game design, and yet it's almost unknown.

I think the original Civ just came along at the right time, and so a fan base developed, and it went from there. And then, there are so few games released for strategy gamers these days...

[Papewaio]

Has anyone played MP online yet?