Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Explain to me without bullshit why Civilisation IV is the 'most complex' Civ game

Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
I appear to have completely triggered a subset of regular codexers who worship Civilsation 4 as somehow the pinnacle of the entire series. I've never really encountered this before on any other site, but the fanboys here are desperately rabbid it seems. As if part 4 holds some kind of magic sauce that the rest of the franchise somehow got wrong.

Well, I really didn't like Civ4 and found it pretty much followed the trend of dumbed down Civ games. With the release of the new Civ VI I've been interested in finally having an interesting new Civ game to play after so many shitty iterations, so I've been reading the Civ VI thread and, while I get the complaints about the game, most are generic to the entire series, crap AI, slow turn times, easy to abuse mechanics, it's too hard, it's too easy, it's shit but I'm loving it etc etc etc, but what really motivated me to post to that thread has been this propaganda line being dropped by so many that Civ 4 somehow represents a benchmark for 'complexity'.

I mean, WTF?

Wtf is so complex about Civ 4. I went straight in at Prince level and won each victory condition without batting an eyelid. For Civ 3 and previous titles I had to read tips and tricks on Civfanatics before I made Prince easy, and even then it was still a whole lot of very complicated micromanagement combining lots of knowledge I'd built up from my own experiences. But part 4 Prince, just followed the obvious and, bam, steamroll wins.

Now, I hear people use the phrase 'on higher difficulties' a lot, but, shit, they're all gonna be 'complex' on higher difficulties, shit, most people don't even bother playing Civ 3 on Sid level just because the micromanagement requirement is too physically exhausting, shuffling stacks of 400 units around every fucking turn, so of course 1UPT makes Sid level easier, you're moving less units per turn so it's not such a stamina drain.

So what makes Civ 4 so fucking complex? Can anyone actually put each relevant detail into words without using the "on higher difficulties" caveat? As in, what makes it so damn 'complex compared to the other games in the series', cos I haven't a fucking clue what planet you're all on beyond planet fanboy.

(and to move this topic derail away from the Civ 6 thread. To the mods - I searched for a Civ 4 thread but got no results putting "Civilisation IV" or "Civilisation 4" into the search box, if you know of a thread feel free to move this one there or whatever).
 
Last edited:

machtstunt

Novice
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
4
There's more stuff or more options to consider in Civ4 than previous games ranging from religion and its affects on diplomacy, to the rock-paper-scissors style of units to resource gathering and others. As another post said there are also more strategies and tricks involved.

As an example of the last one, prioritization of resources, we can compare with Civ3. In Civ3 if one doesn't have a resource like IRON or COAL one is substantially handicapped. There is no option other than acquiring those resources either through trade or conquest to build good units or railroads. In Civ4 there are half assed substitutes like COPPER or unit choice sacrifices that won't totally handicap a player in comparison to Civ3. Using religion may also help with making friends with an AI with the resource, along with traditional means of gifting, etc. In my Civ3 experience diplomacy is a bit of a rip if you're trying to get a resource or technology. So one can get by without that resources generally easier and do different stuff.

That isn't to say it is the most fun of the Civs by any means. CivII is my favorite because it is less complex. It reminds me more of a board game rather than a Turn Based Historical Simulation Strategy Game. But in terms of having a wider range of options and things to worry about or consider, Civ4 is superior to the prior games. I didn't like Civ5 that much but it seems to have more of that too, but most of them seem irrelevant to the concept and just add make work complexity for the dunning-kruger cru.
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
You brought the complexity topic up. Civ4 is just the best Civ game all around. Best UI, systemic gameplay, BEST MP, BEST MODDING PLATFORM, adequate design.
Now shut the fuck up and go play civ 3.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
You brought the complexity topic up. Civ4 is just the best Civ game all around. Best UI, systemic gameplay, BEST MP, BEST MODDING PLATFORM, adequate design.
Now shut the fuck up and go play civ 3.

Really... this guy's the one who wanted this debate:

Considering Civ 4 is objectively the most complex Civ game

And as you can tell from the replies in the other thread there are plenty of people who appear to agree...

But when it comes to 'objectivity'... oh... right... not so noisy.
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
Well I skipped through the thread. But even in terms of actual complexity, civ4 allows for the most diverse playing styles.
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
You are a fucking moron. In terms of wincons and systems only civ3 can compete anyways. But civ3 was so flawed, especially after the changes the expansions brought. In every civ game before civ4, more cities is always better. ICS was the rule and if you deviated from it you limited yourself. In Civ4 the actual best play isn't always obvious as you generally try to maintaijn a balance between teching and new cities. I have to add that I usually play with at least tech brokering off, often tech trading off, because the AI is just not a good merchant.
And if you hold civ3's diplo in such high regards, what about the exploitable Rights of Passage?
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
You are a fucking moron. In terms of wincons and systems only civ3 can compete anyways. But civ3 was so flawed, especially after the changes the expansions brought. In every civ game before civ4, more cities is always better. ICS was the rule and if you deviated from it you limited yourself. In Civ4 the actual best play isn't always obvious as you generally try to maintaijn a balance between teching and new cities. I have to add that I usually play with at least tech brokering off, often tech trading off, because the AI is just not a good merchant.
And if you hold civ3's diplo in such high regards, what about the exploitable Rights of Passage?

No. In Civ2 Tech was more important than number of cities. The best way to get good tech was building lots of cities, but ICS was only an issue for the more extreme difficulty settings. Stacks of Doom were also less relevant in Civ 2 due to units having a power rating rather than RNG. In Civ 3 ICS and Stacks of Doom were born proper even though many mechanics were, ironically, badly implemented to reduce it. Civ 4 still maintained Stacks of Doom and, again, just implemented badly some restrictions to ICS, but more cities was still the aim of the game, to fill-up your area and grab all available land, afterall, the most classic win condition, Domination, requires you to own most of the land, and the only way to do that is to Settle on it or take it from other AIs, either way, you end up with ICS. That is the whole point of a 4x afterall, Expand... right...
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
Casual question: what's so special about Civ 3's diplo?

No idea. Apparently it's less 'complex' than Civ 4s, even though no-one seems to know what Civ 3's Diplomacy was and Diplomacy has always been shit in Civ games. Still waiting to hear why Civ 4's was so good AFAICT.
 

Storyfag

Perfidious Pole
Patron
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
15,899
Location
Stealth Orbital Nuke Control Centre
Casual question: what's so special about Civ 3's diplo?

No idea. Apparently it's less 'complex' than Civ 4s, even though no-one seems to know what Civ 3's Diplomacy was and Diplomacy has always been shit in Civ games. Still waiting to hear why Civ 4's was so good AFAICT.

But... you were the one who claimed Civ 3 diplo has hidden depths.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
But... you were the one who claimed Civ 3 diplo has hidden depths.

Well start a Civ 3 thread about it then...

Civ IV is considered the best game in the series by most communities, it's not a Codexian idiosyncrasy. Don't let that stop you from posting dumb shit though.

No it's not... It's likely the same 4 or 5 rabid fanboys on the same sites you visit, all mouth and volume but zero content.
 

baturinsky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,526
Location
Russia
Civ6 is probably more complex than Civ4 now. But it will take a lot of patches/mods to make all it's parts really tick together.
 

Hoaxmetal

Arcane
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
9,157
rabid fanboys, all mouth and volume but zero content.

fanboy.png
 

coldcrow

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
1,650
No. In Civ2 Tech was more important than number of cities. The best way to get good tech was building lots of cities, but ICS was only an issue for the more extreme difficulty settings.

You manage to contradict yourself twice in 2 sentences. Not making much of a point there, good sir.
 

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,382
IncendiaryDevice
Dude, you really might want to elaborate on what your definition of "complexity" is before you throw a tantrum about it,
because it seems what you're bitching about is difficulty.

If you are displeased with Civ 4 being too "easy", here's some food for thought, if you had played the previous iterations in the series,
it jut might be so that it's so much easier for you to extrapolate sound strategies (not that it's rocket science in civ games).
Also, remember that Civ 4 actually did a decent job at explaining various game mechanics and showing all the relevant modifiers for decision making.
(Don't get me started on Civ 2, where you had to code dive to discover how revolution time actually worked, or which was downright misleading about how combat actually worked in the manual).

I also don't know why your vagina gets all sandy about higher difficulty levels. Is it not so that highest difficulty demands that
you actually use all the tricks in the book to succeed? If so, discussing higher difficulties is very relevant when assessing game complexity,
because you get to understand which parts of the game systems are just icing on the cake and which decisions actually matter.
Dunno about your definition, but that's how I would go about evaluating actual complexity as opposed to superficial dicking about .

It baffles me. You really need a quest compass for how Civ4 is more complex than other Civs before it? Just a few off the top of my head.

The combat system is clearly more complex with various unit types and promotions that interplay with each other, allowing to build specialized units and counter strategies.
I'm not saying it doesn't have its share of problems, but it's evidently more complex

Civics system is more complex, being adopted from Alpha Centauri. That's a step above the standard "premade" governments, allowing you to tailor your "democracy" to better fit the game plan.
It also affects diplomacy and all other game mechanics to an extent, adding another layer of complexity.

You also have added complexity in production, allowing to spec your civ to effectively use population as a resource.

And that would be the base game. Let's not forget that Civilization 4 was the most moddable game out of the bunch.
This means the potential for growth was effectively unlimited. With Civ 4 mods I always feel like there's stuff to go back to, whereas Civ 1-3 feel like "solved" games to me.
 
Self-Ejected

IncendiaryDevice

Self-Ejected
Village Idiot
Joined
Nov 3, 2014
Messages
7,407
IncendiaryDevice
Dude, you really might want to elaborate on what your definition of "complexity" is before you throw a tantrum about it,
because it seems what you're bitching about is difficulty.

If you are displeased with Civ 4 being too "easy", here's some food for thought, if you had played the previous iterations in the series,
it jut might be so that it's so much easier for you to extrapolate sound strategies (not that it's rocket science in civ games).
Also, remember that Civ 4 actually did a decent job at explaining various game mechanics and showing all the relevant modifiers for decision making.
(Don't get me started on Civ 2, where you had to code dive to discover how revolution time actually worked, or which was downright misleading about how combat actually worked in the manual).

I also don't know why your vagina gets all sandy about higher difficulty levels. Is it not so that highest difficulty demands that
you actually use all the tricks in the book to succeed? If so, discussing higher difficulties is very relevant when assessing game complexity,
because you get to understand which parts of the game systems are just icing on the cake and which decisions actually matter.
Dunno about your definition, but that's how I would go about evaluating actual complexity as opposed to superficial dicking about .

It baffles me. You really need a quest compass for how Civ4 is more complex than other Civs before it? Just a few off the top of my head.

Yeah, I mean it's really great that you spend half your post writing out complete crap before getting to the point, this seems to be a running theme with everyone who's tried to answer the question... Oh, and it was me that asked for a definition of 'complexity' in the first place, because the charatcer/s who made the claim that Civ 4 is the 'most complex' Civ game haven't actually done that yet...

Now to your actual points (which don't require a quest compass, it's called regular conversation you dipshit)

The combat system is clearly more complex with various unit types and promotions that interplay with each other, allowing to build specialized units and counter strategies.
I'm not saying it doesn't have its share of problems, but it's evidently more complex

So evident that you can't even put into words why, I'm just supposed to take your word for it, right, gotcha, that's not a running theme at all...

What makes Civ 4's unit promotions any better than any other Civ game? My experience was that as soon as my Warrior got quite experienced the Tech-tree had moved on to the point where I needed to replace the unit with a better unit anyway. Also, because the game uses the same SHIT RNG that Civ 3 uses then Promotions don't necessarily mean shit anyway, you could still roll a 1 no matter how good they were... and the small percentage benefit is barely worth the effort of playing towards it and delaying your attacks to always get the improved unit at the front line, fully healed. It's just another bonus that happens and you say, cool, and move on without taking much notice of it. In Civ 3 acquiring Unit promotions can be a specific alternative option to battles where wasting a few turns healing and getting the guy to the front again can provide serious long-term benefits as only Elite Units can produce Great Military Generals. If Civ 4 fully promoted Units can do something amazing that I'm not aware of, please let me know.

Civics system is more complex, being adopted from Alpha Centauri. That's a step above the standard "premade" governments, allowing you to tailor your "democracy" to better fit the game plan.
It also affects diplomacy and all other game mechanics to an extent, adding another layer of complexity.

Ok, so Civics were a new mechanic to Civ 4, I can't really argue 1,2 or 3 had better Civics because they didn't have Civics, they did have other stuff that Civ4 doesn't have though, like Civil Wars and Trade Caravans in Civ2 and a severe Corruption mechanic and Armies in Civ 3 (regardless of whether you like them or not, which is apparently the way the debate goes with Civ4'ers, they exist as a 'complexity' if complexity is just 'stuff in the game'). So both Civ5 and Civ6 have Civics, I haven't played them yet, but maybe you'll tell me how 4's Civics are more complex than 5 or 6s?

You also have added complexity in production, allowing to spec your civ to effectively use population as a resource.

Which stems from a Civic entitled 'Slavery Civic', which, as I have said on the other thread and will repeat here, is something you can do in previous games under certain government types, you consume city population to finish buildings and units, it's hardly revolutionary, unless there's some detail you're deliberately holding back then I'm not seeing how this make the game 'more complex' than other titles.

And that would be the base game. Let's not forget that Civilization 4 was the most moddable game out of the bunch.
This means the potential for growth was effectively unlimited. With Civ 4 mods I always feel like there's stuff to go back to, whereas Civ 1-3 feel like "solved" games to me.

If someone's argument was that Civ4 is the best version for modding I wouldn't argue a single point. But Mods have fuck all to do with the discussion - unless you want to make it the sole point of the discussion as your interpretation of complexity, sure.
 
Last edited:

spectre

Arcane
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
5,382
So evident that you can't even put into words why, I'm just supposed to take your word for it
Yes. You claim to have played Civilization 4. If you can't see it from such a cursory description, there's no hope for you.
I assume this was your way of asking nicely, I don't want to waste too many kilobytes on you, so here's the gist:
The promotions system alone already blows previous civs out of the water as it allows to create special purpose units:
attacker, defender, guerilla, field medic... a rifleman unit can be any of those.
Is that sufficient for you to acknowledge increased complexity?

Which stems from a Civic entitled 'Slavery Civic', which, as I have said on the other thread and will repeat here, is something you can do in previous games under certain government types, you consume city population to finish buildings and units, it's hardly revolutionary, unless there's some detail you're deliberately holding back then I'm not seeing how this make the game 'more complex' than other titles.
My memory is failing me, care to elaborate which government types? I only recall rushing stuff with caravans and drafting citizens.
Anyways, Drafting was at best an emergency option in previous civs. In Civilization 4 you can use it similarly, or go all the way and base your entire economy around it, either just for a period of time, or for the majority of the game (f.e. when playing as the Aztecs).
Dunno, I file it under added complexity.

Ok, so Civics were a new mechanic to Civ 4, I can't really argue 1,2 or 3 had better Civics because they didn't have Civics, they did have other stuff that Civ4 doesn't have though, like Civil Wars and Trade Caravans in Civ2 and a severe Corruption mechanic and Armies in Civ 3 (regardless of whether you like them or not, which is apparently the way the debate goes with Civ4'ers, they exist as a 'complexity' if complexity is just 'stuff in the game'. So both Civ5 and Civ6 have Civics, I haven't played them yet, but maybe you'll tell me how 4's Civics are more complex than 5 or 6s?
You're grasping at straws here. If you looked hard enough, Civilization 1-3 had "civics", as in, major and minor abilities you get from having a certain form of government.
A dedicated civics system allows a degree of freedom to customize these perks and pursue more advanced tactics and strategies that are meaningful in the game's context (here's a possible definition of complexity, by the way).



But Mods have fuck all to do with the discussion
I brought them up, so they do now.
Read up on f.e. Rhye's and Fall mod:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhye's_and_Fall_of_Civilization
I would argue that it magnifies the level of "complexity" (however you wish to define it) of the vanilla game, and IIRC it was included with one of the game's big expansions, so it's kinda official.
Not to mention, it's just one of many mods out there.
 

baturinsky

Arcane
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
5,526
Location
Russia
In Civ 3 you just have to city-spam to win. But Civ IV discourages you from doing this by increasing the maintains cost. It makes you expand more carefully.
Civ3 has probably the most severe penalties for city spam. In Civ4 more cities just cost more money upkeep, and that you can handle. But in civ3 you get severe production penalties for city number, which makes cities after certain number nearly worthless.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom