Civilization IV anyone?

[BDC]

I don't like it. Galactic Civilizations II seems better. I even liked Civ2 more.

It's just so boring and lacking in proper control. I spend three hours clicking next turn and then get killed/bored/win.

[screwtype]

I should add, another thng I don't like about it is the new combat system. With the old one units had a separate attack and defence factor which was quite intuitive, in the sense that it was pretty easy to figure out which units would do better and worse against one another.

The new one has just a "strength" factor combined with unique unit abilites. These unit abilites are difficult to remember and quite arbitrary. For example, there is no reason why an axeman should get a 50% bonus in melee over a swordsman, or why a swordsman should get a bonus in city attack instead.

Perhaps if the unit abilities actually made sense it wouldn't have been such a turn-off. My own feeling about the game was that if I spent a several months modding unit abilities and tweaking the tech chart and time factors, I could probably have created a pretty decent game. But I don't have the time or inclination to do that. The out-of-the-box experience just wasn't up to scratch in my view.

[screwtype]

It's just so boring and lacking in proper control. I spend three hours clicking next turn and then get killed/bored/win.

Yeah, all you seem to do for the first thousand years or two is click the end turn button, because it takes so very long to build new settlers and workers. In the previous game, the early years are actually a lot of fun to play. It's the later years that get tedious, when there is too much to do and the AI takes ages to move.

With Civ4, the early years go by in a flash with very little to do, unless you have a war, and then in the late game you research techs so fast that you are into one new era after another with no time to enjoy any of them. So, to my mind, the whole thing was just unbalanced and unsatisfying to play.

[Lorenzo_H]

Screwtype!?!?!? What is wrong with you dude? You obviously know a lot about the series and are well informed, but I don't see how its possible to dislike Civ IV?

Civ IV is very satisfying and extremely fun imo.

[Ser Clegane]

Civ IV is very satisfying and extremely fun imo.

And the bold part is exactly the point - whether you like the (or a) game or not is just an opinion.
While I share your view on Civ4 (I personally also very much enjoyed it and preferred it over Civ3) I can understand a lot of the issues screwtype has with Civ4 (e.g., how the battles work and how the different eras are treated).

You enjoyed it, he did not - you can continue to enjoy it and screwtype will (hopefully) find games he will enjoy - nothing wrong with either of you I would say...

[Lorenzo_H]

I was making that comment for precisely that reason! I don't want others to be put off what many consider to be a great game. I think screwtype was harshly critical in his analysis.

[Lorenzo_H]

hey, somhow this thread says it was started by Ser Clegane from the Arena Forum. I started this though!

[econ21]

hey, somhow this thread says it was started by Ser Clegane from the Arena Forum. I started this though!

Don't worry - there's some wierd bug with the forums whereby Admins posts are often not visible on the forum lists and where threads they participate in can incorrectly be assigned to them. They are working hard to track down the bug, but no luck yet.

[NodachiSam]

I resent your poll choices, I certainly have taste :P. I don't plan on buying Civ 4 because my experience with it turned so sour despite my initial enthusiasm and enjoyment with it. I played it every day for a few weeks, stopped and gave it away to my friend. Some of the limitations seemed so frustratingly arbitrary (like not being able to make armies in the very early stages) and the game over all so inflexible. Only a radically improved game could tempt me back. I've heard though Civ4 isn't really that different from the last incarnation.

I'd rather have a more flexible civilization simulator, mixing elements from the TW series and the good stuff from the Civ series. I yearn for something realistic (but still playable) and very dynamic where societies could rise, fall, splinter, transform, where economics, geography, environmental factors, and movement of technology all are important. Something that makes you feel like you are really playing with history, or something that is really involving anyways. It could easily ignore actual historic events, people and earth geography for all I care. Something I like about MTW is that your actions feel relevant historically, while CIV 3 is very abstract. Ahwell, it is a lot to wish for.

Ironically, I enjoyed the demo of Alpha Centauri a great deal and hope to aquire the full game somehow. Maybe I will check out this Galactic civilizations too. If there is a demo for Civ4, I will give it a try because I shall not spend money on it otherwise. I'm kinda still open to it though I have strong expectations.

[Lorenzo_H]

@NodachiSam. I like both Total War and Civilization, but I don't want them both to be the same game. The whole idea of the game is to do whatever you wish in the course of creating your empire. What version of Civ were you playing? #3? I definitly think, judging by what you have said, that you would enjoy the latest version, #4. You do feel you are dealing with relavent history, particularly when completeing wonders and also when Great People (great scientists, Prophets, Engineers, Artists and Merchants) are born. GPs are a new and wonderfully fun part of Civ4, each one having different talents and abilities to help you.

I would definitly recommend that you try it out.

[doc_bean]

I played it every day for a few weeks, stopped and gave it away to my friend. Some of the limitations seemed so frustratingly arbitrary (like not being able to make armies in the very early stages) and the game over all so inflexible.

A rather common complaint about the civ games, sometimes it feels like you're just clicking end of turn or building whatever the computer suggests. It takes a little time and some experience before you're able to really 'control' your civilizations long term evolution imo.

But about the lack of armies: I'm usually a peaceful player and I think Civ is at its best when you don't go warmongering all over the map, although that can be fun too, I usually find the slow movement speeds frustrating when making war. Galactic Civ doesn't really have this problem (or to a lesser extent) since you can upgrade your ships' engines to make them go further per turn. So if you are more into warfare than peaceful development I suggest you check that game out. (Both CIV and Gal Civ II have demos available)

[x-dANGEr]

I think the best Civ is simply Civ III! :)

Edit:

And to stay on topic: I do have it, but it really haven't got me stickied except for 4 hours, and that's a total. So I think you know what my opinion on the expansion would be ;)

[NodachiSam]

It was Civ3 I owned. I'll look for the demo and give it a try I suppose.