Quote Originally Posted by econ21
Civ has always suffered from the late-game drag, but Civ4 less so than Civ2. That's partly because OCS is less prevalent so you have fewer cities; and partly because micromanagement of each city is reduced.

The point about the tech tree may be in contradiction to the late-game point. I find techs are discovered so fast in the modern era (about 7 turns per tech even on epic/huge), so the end-game actually goes too quickly for me. There's no point invading anyone or even managing your empire with great care; all that matters is cranking out the spaceship asap. (Maybe I should use other victory conditions, but they don't seem that appealing either.)

The most satisfying period for me in Civ4 is from roughly pikemen to redcoats. You are advanced enough that you can afford war without stalling your economy; and the end is still far away enough that the war, not the victory conditions, loom largest in your mind.
I agree, I think with Civ4 they went too far in the opposite direction. The way you race through the techs toward the end just feels wrong.

Quote Originally Posted by econ21
I do like the earlier period of exploration and development too - it is rather like the Imperialism 2 tightrope of managing smooth expansion. But I like a bit of combat too and early combat is just too costly in Civ (at least for a turtler like me - apparently massing 8 axemen and stomping the AI is the height of good strategy on higher difficulties. )
Yes, combat in Civ doesn't work very well at all. I remember the second last campaign I played in Civ3, I started a war in about the bronze age and it lasted over 1000 years! I think one city changed hands in all that time. Pretty silly really.

I had a similar problem with Civ4 too. I was trying to take an enemy city, but it took so long just to get my units in position that in the end I couldn't stand it anymore and just chucked in the whole campaign.