Jump to content


CIV IV Comments/opinions/suggestions


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#21 iGreg

iGreg

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 07:39 PM

I also have trouble with the graphics and interface. Much too cluttered and confusing. Civ III handled it better.

Even with the update it is still too slow.

I doubt I will spend much more time with it. Destined to be uninstalled and put on the shelf to gather dust.

Serious decline in Civilization series. If you play Civ III, stay with that and forget about IV.

:(

#22 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 25 July 2006 - 09:48 PM

View PostiGreg, on July 25th 2006, 09:39 PM, said:

Serious decline in Civilization series. If you play Civ III, stay with that and forget about IV.

The only thing is, Civ IV is clearly a much better game, as far as the mechanics go.  After the initial confusion, I ended up not having any real issues with the graphics...in fact, it's a return to the plain top-down squares from Civ I, instead of the angled stuff from II and III, which I find less confusing overall.

The only serious problem is the speed (the missing sounds are annoying but not game-killing).  I can't quite figure out what slows it down so much.  Toward the end of the game, just selecting a specialist in the city view will cause a delay of several seconds, and this is on a 2.5GHz G5.  A low framerate I could deal with...it's a TBS game, after all, so who really cares.  But the game itself eventually running so slow makes it not that fun, unfortunately.

--Eric

#23 Marid

Marid

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:58 AM

View PostEric5h5, on July 25th 2006, 08:48 PM, said:

The only thing is, Civ IV is clearly a much better game, as far as the mechanics go.  After the initial confusion, I ended up not having any real issues with the graphics...in fact, it's a return to the plain top-down squares from Civ I, instead of the angled stuff from II and III, which I find less confusing overall.

The only serious problem is the speed (the missing sounds are annoying but not game-killing).  I can't quite figure out what slows it down so much.  Toward the end of the game, just selecting a specialist in the city view will cause a delay of several seconds, and this is on a 2.5GHz G5.  A low framerate I could deal with...it's a TBS game, after all, so who really cares.  But the game itself eventually running so slow makes it not that fun, unfortunately.

--Eric

I strongly disagree. Civ IV appears at first like it should be a much better game, but after a few days of playing I'm just not having any fun. Civ II, MoO2, and SMAC are among my favorite games of all time. Not only is this game sluggish performance wise, it is boring me. That shouldn't happen with this franchise and it is a real shame.

It is hard to define just what is missing for me, but I think that:

A) The Wonders don't seem that hard to build and don't satisfy me once I've built them. The movies are also lackluster. The lack of updates about what other cultures are building means I don't feel I'm racing to build one.

B) The world seems really small. In no time at all most of the available land is settled and all of the civilizations meet.

C) The combat doesn't feel crisp, sudden, and violent. Most of the models are animated without inspiration save for the aircraft. Each battle looks like a child is knocking two action figures together.

D) The game seems to play itself. Now I know that is the worst criticism one can give a game, but it just doesn't seem like what I do matters all that much.

About the only thing I like about this game is the way culture is implemented. Unfortunately that isn't enough to keep me interested.

:(

#24 sleyes

sleyes

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 26 July 2006 - 01:58 PM

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

A) The Wonders don't seem that hard to build and don't satisfy me once I've built them. The movies are also lackluster. The lack of updates about what other cultures are building means I don't feel I'm racing to build one.
I aggree that wonders seem less "wonder"ful in this game... their effects seem almost subliminal. I think the "streamlining" process the game designers went through (to make a faster, more "playable" game) de-emphasized these. Civ III came to a complete stop when a wonder was built, for everyone to marvel (and make new build orders)... the only reason I know that a wonder is built now is if I can't work on it anymore -- I ALWAYS miss the little text note zipping by in the top left corner.
I kinda like the little movies, though... a nice feature to add the effects at the end, since i would almost always click open the civopedia to remind myself why i built the thing in the first place!

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

B) The world seems really small. In no time at all most of the available land is settled and all of the civilizations meet.
On the other hand, the "huge" map can be a drag - since railroads no longer give you teleport-ability, a war on your east coast can mean you units are 3-4 turns away from your western frontier. I think one of the reasons it "seems" small is the fact that the units are scaled to be the size of New Jersey, and the cities spill out to overflow their squares.

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

C) The combat doesn't feel crisp, sudden, and violent. Most of the models are animated without inspiration save for the aircraft. Each battle looks like a child is knocking two action figures together.
I DO prefer the way bombardment works in IV... making the defense value go down seems more "real", and aerial bombardment of units (with collateral damage) is great -- but why cant I use my d*mn artillery the same way, rather than having to sacrifice it in the first wave? And how come I can't sink an emeny battleship without losing three of my own, or without bombing the cr*p out of it first?
Stealth Bombers are cool and useful, but i hate to see them break in half...

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

D) The game seems to play itself. Now I know that is the worst criticism one can give a game, but it just doesn't seem like what I do matters all that much.
I get annoyed by the "freindships" that develop without my knowing anything about them; why can't i get America to hate the Inca? Why do they like each other so much? I miss espionage.

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 02:58 AM, said:

About the only thing I like about this game is the way culture is implemented. Unfortunately that isn't enough to keep me interested.
:(
...but then again, culture is one of the reasons a) the world seems small and b) gets populated so quickly. I love it when I "convert" an enemy city without a fight, but I also hate it when the enemy sneaks a small city onto my flank/coast and then puts 25 or so units in it to keep it from "converting"... but i guess that's Hong Kong for you.
I've gotten really bugged by the AI's habit of having so many units ready to move when the map changes; later in the game, as i crush a nieghbor with some built-up culture, it takes up to 10 turns to assimiliate their cities... leaving huge tracts of land open to enemy colonization! I don't want build more cities, I wnat the ones I conquered, but I feel like I need an inpenetrable ring of units to protect my new frontiers. Shouldn't I be able to drop a settler into a conquered city to help it assimilate faster? Especially when I've completely defeated the enemy?

#25 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:17 PM

View PostMarid, on July 26th 2006, 05:58 AM, said:

A) The Wonders don't seem that hard to build and don't satisfy me once I've built them. The movies are also lackluster. The lack of updates about what other cultures are building means I don't feel I'm racing to build one.

At least there ARE movies; Civ III didn't have any.  It's possible there are actually too many wonders in Civ IV and that the effects aren't spectacular...but overall that's a good thing.  Too many times in previous Civs, the wonder effects were so overwhelming that you HAD to get the rights ones (at least on harder difficulty levels) or you were screwed.  It makes strategy more interesting instead of always being a race to see who can get Wonder X first.  For example, it's GREAT that your navel units get an extra turn  by circumnavigating the globe, instead of having to build the Magellan wonder.  My navel strategies always used to get permanently messed up if someone managed to build that wonder first.

Quote

B) The world seems really small. In no time at all most of the available land is settled and all of the civilizations meet.

Well, that's entirely dependent on the world size, not to mention the number of civilizations you choose.  You can say that about any of the Civ games.

Quote

C) The combat doesn't feel crisp, sudden, and violent. Most of the models are animated without inspiration save for the aircraft. Each battle looks like a child is knocking two action figures together.

So turn the combat animation off.  ;)  

Quote

D) The game seems to play itself. Now I know that is the worst criticism one can give a game, but it just doesn't seem like what I do matters all that much.

I'm not sure how you got that impression.  If only the game played at an acceptable speed, I'd love it.  My only real criticism is that the late game somehow feels a little too similar to previous Civs, despite the changes.  

--Eric

#26 Marid

Marid

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 27 July 2006 - 01:22 AM

One thing to consider is that I'm coming back to Civ after playing SMAC for countless long nights. SMAC was a huge advance over Civ2, which I had played before it. So many things that SMAC has Civ IV lacks. For example, each faction in SMAC is unique and has a personality of its own. For instance Chairman Yang, Col. Santiago, and Miriam were villains. Pravin was at least trying to be a hero. Some factions were downright aggressive and others passive. You knew who to watch out for but to be wary of the others. Your choices for government and culture would upset some factions and please others. The planet mind played a very important role, especially in the later stages of the game. You could also make your own units. That itself was really fun. Civ IV lacks anything like these innovations.

To add to my list of general complaints, why don't the different civilizations have unique looking cities? It really added to the experience to see that one country looked different than another.

Does Civ IV have atrocities? Does it matter to other nations if I sacrifice slaves for buildings?  It sure doesn't seem to. Is there an option to use something like using nerve gas or biological warfare? Something that angers every nation on this planet?

#27 Beamup

Beamup

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 27 July 2006 - 04:40 AM

View PostMarid, on July 27th 2006, 03:22 AM, said:

One thing to consider is that I'm coming back to Civ after playing SMAC for countless long nights. SMAC was a huge advance over Civ2, which I had played before it. So many things that SMAC has Civ IV lacks. For example, each faction in SMAC is unique and has a personality of its own. For instance Chairman Yang, Col. Santiago, and Miriam were villains. Pravin was at least trying to be a hero. Some factions were downright aggressive and others passive. You knew who to watch out for but to be wary of the others. Your choices for government and culture would upset some factions and please others.
The different AIs in Civ4 are a lot more distinct in their behavior than the different factions in SMAC.

Quote

The planet mind played a very important role, especially in the later stages of the game. You could also make your own units. That itself was really fun. Civ IV lacks anything like these innovations.
The planet mind was completely irrelevant to anything.  Fungus and native lifeforms are pretty much completely equivalent to pollution and barbarians... one of which was removed because most people hated the tedium of it!

Quote

To add to my list of general complaints, why don't the different civilizations have unique looking cities? It really added to the experience to see that one country looked different than another.
Because they didn't want to spend another year making art and then ship it on 4-5 DVDs.  The graphics are otherwise HUGELY superior, though - it's a tradeoff.

Quote

Does Civ IV have atrocities? Does it matter to other nations if I sacrifice slaves for buildings?  It sure doesn't seem to. Is there an option to use something like using nerve gas or biological warfare? Something that angers every nation on this planet?
Nukes, of course.
Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?

#28 jrnewhouse

jrnewhouse

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:17 AM

Does anyone miss the ability to form armies? :(
Quad-Core 3.0GHz Mac Pro w/3GB RAM, 500 & 750 GB and 1.0 TB WD Caviar 7200rpm HDs, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT w/512 MB, 20" ACD, Mac OS X 10.6.4

#29 Beamup

Beamup

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 27 July 2006 - 03:48 PM

You mean the ability to completely and utterly obliterate the AI using something it had absolutely no clue how to either use or deal with?  (i.e. C3C)

Or the ability to completely waste a Great Leader for pretty much no (or even negative) return?  (i.e. vanilla)

Armies were kind of cool, but they never managed to make them work properly.
Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?

#30 sleyes

sleyes

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 27 July 2006 - 04:25 PM

View PostBeamup, on July 27th 2006, 02:48 PM, said:

You mean the ability to completely and utterly obliterate the AI using something it had absolutely no clue how to either use or deal with?  (i.e. C3C)

Or the ability to completely waste a Great Leader for pretty much no (or even negative) return?  (i.e. vanilla)

Armies were kind of cool, but they never managed to make them work properly.

I originally HATED armies in CivIII, mostly (as you say) because they waste a perfectly good leader (who could speed up that all-important wonder, like Sun Tzu's Art of War... don't go to war without it!).

Three things changed my mind: 1) you need a "victorious" army to build a couple of wonders (heroic epic, one other I can't remember(?)); 2) armies get the VERY convenient mulitiple-attack ability; and 3) armies were good to get thru that pesky first-unit defender of an enemy city. It seemed like I could never kill the strongest unit defending a city, only damage it, with single units, and the enemy would likely regenerate if I didn't have scores of troops sacrificing themselves to get to it.

Bombardment worked OCCASSIONALLY, but could be a tradeoff on larger cities (I always seemed to destroy more imporvements than damage units). I much prefer the Civ4 bombardment model, where I get a choice of what to target, though it only works with aircraft -- would be nice if ships and artillery had the same option(s).

I miss armies a little in Civ4... mostly, I would like to get a little credit when I've got a horde of units built up attacking in what SHOULD be unison, but is little more than one-at-a-time. Yes, I'll eventually wear the enemy down, but the AI has a nasty habit of putting a dozen+ units in defensive cities later in the game... it's got nothing better to do (it knows it shouldn't attack ME), so it just piles up units, then when I DO attack, I get nowhere - and get slaughtered on the counter-attack.


And speaking of Late Game... has anyone else waited a while to build a nuclear ICBM stockpile, only to find it shot down by the enemy? I was late in a game with double the points of any other civ (turned off all but conquest victory), and I decided it would be cool to nuke the cr*p out of the last two civs -- who proceeded to make swiss cheese of my 30 or so ICBMs! Sheee-it! THAT was a waste of time and money... not a single one got thru.

#31 Beamup

Beamup

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Location:Boston

Posted 28 July 2006 - 04:33 AM

View Postsleyes, on July 27th 2006, 06:25 PM, said:

Three things changed my mind: 1) you need a "victorious" army to build a couple of wonders (heroic epic, one other I can't remember(?)); 2) armies get the VERY convenient mulitiple-attack ability; and 3) armies were good to get thru that pesky first-unit defender of an enemy city. It seemed like I could never kill the strongest unit defending a city, only damage it, with single units, and the enemy would likely regenerate if I didn't have scores of troops sacrificing themselves to get to it.
1) It's the heroic epic (which does nothing but get you more leaders) and the military academy (which does nothing but build more armies).  Since in vanilla armies are worthless, the military academy is similarly worthless.  And you have to do a LOT of warring for the HE to get you two more leaders, which is when you actually start to benefit a bit - since you wasted one on building it.

2) Only in C3C, where they're grossly overpowered and game-breaking rather than useless.

3) Except you'd almost always be better off attacking three seperate times, rather than once.
Questions, comments, arguments, refutations, criticisms, and/or sea stories?

#32 Marid

Marid

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 28 July 2006 - 08:19 PM

View PostBeamup, on July 27th 2006, 03:40 AM, said:

Because they didn't want to spend another year making art and then ship it on 4-5 DVDs. The graphics are otherwise HUGELY superior, though - it's a tradeoff.

Actually, I would say the graphics are not "hugely" superior. They are 3D, but as such lack a lot of the artistry that 2D graphics often have. I think that high resolution pre-rendered graphics are preferable for the slow pace of civ games. Does one really need to change the viewing angle that much? Especially if your CPU and GPU will choke?

#33 eschatz

eschatz

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 28 July 2006 - 10:21 PM

In a stupid and unproductive comment, I will say that I have not played this game at all even though I own it. The reason being the bugs I have encountered. I know they will be fixed though it will be a while. I prefer playing Civ 3 in general (though that still needs a patch which has been in the works for quite some time. I will take a PPC patch that fixes the sound bugs because I don't have an intel mac.) Civ IV seems to have a learning curve that I don't have the patience for.
Edward

#34 martyjay75

martyjay75

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 29 July 2006 - 09:40 AM

View Postjrnewhouse, on July 27th 2006, 08:17 AM, said:

Does anyone miss the ability to form armies? :(


No.  Mostly because you can still link units together using the grouping command.  It's a different way to go about doing it, but I has the same effect.

#35 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 30 July 2006 - 11:47 PM

So how's that finalized patch working for you guys? Works pretty damn well for me. :) Seems like all the glorious sounds are there now... even if I got stomped into the ground by the Roman empire in my latest game. :rolleyes: I certainly got to hear a lot of elephants trampling my puny little men after they cut me off from some very vital resources. I can't really tell whether the performance has picked up or not; maybe I just got used to the sluggishness. *shrugs*

I kind of like the multiple units displayed for one unit; it does help one estimate how much health one has left during a fight (even if it's very probably already calculated before the actual fight is shown).
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#36 Eric5h5

Eric5h5

    Minion Tormentor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7160 posts

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:04 AM

View PostPegasus, on July 31st 2006, 01:47 AM, said:

So how's that finalized patch working for you guys?

Hey!  Nobody told me anything about a new patch...downloading now....

--Eric

#37 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:10 AM

Yeah, I just happened to stumble upon it last night when I went on macgamefiles. I saw it near the top of the list with the new date so I figured it was updated, and, lo and behold, it was. :)
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#38 eschatz

eschatz

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:22 AM

say what. Is this a revised verson of Revision A?
Edward

#39 Mister Mumbles

Mister Mumbles

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2511 posts
  • Location:Not here; not there; not anywhere!

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:30 AM

What are you on about? All we had before was the beta patch. This is the final patch of Rev A.
Formerly known as a Mac gamer.

#40 eschatz

eschatz

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 788 posts
  • Location:Baltimore, Maryland

Posted 31 July 2006 - 12:34 AM

I am remarking on the fact that there is no mention in the MGF page that this is the "final version" outside of the fact it was posted on 7/29. Regardless, I will take your word for it.
Edward