Civ4: A painfully mediocre game.

[Jim Cojones]

Thanks for agreeing with me, Jamie.

 

[Burning Bridges]

but that was

1993

So what? Quite a few of my fav games come from the early 90's. Civ 1 still remains the best for me because while having everything that's really cool about the later Civ's it lacks the unnecessary clutter. It's just a streamlined little bundle of fun.

I never said otherwise. The point is, ol' Sid hasn't come up with anything new since Microprose foundered (apart from that stupid cartoon style) and yet people praise him to the skies. Even at the codex he seems to be a holy cow.

 

[Trash]

Much like Garriot, Molyneus and the like he was responsible for some of my fav gaming moments in the 90's. For some reason however they seemed to have lost their knack in the 2000's. Shame really, but that doesn't mean they weren't genius in their glory days.

 

[Serus]

but that was

1993

So what? Quite a few of my fav games come from the early 90's. Civ 1 still remains the best for me because while having everything that's really cool about the later Civ's it lacks the unnecessary clutter. It's just a streamlined little bundle of fun.

I never said otherwise. The point is, ol' Sid hasn't come up with anything new since Microprose foundered (apart from that stupid cartoon style) and yet people praise him to the skies. Even at the codex he seems to be a holy cow.

I disagree, i enjoyed his Gettysburg - that was his last good game imho.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Civ 1 is still the best one. Nothing beats the nostalgia value of that wonderfull piece of software.

but that was

1993

Actually that was 1991.

I haven't played any Civilization games beyond Civilization 2 (I played (and loved) Alpha Centauri, but that's not a real Civilization game) but Civilization 1 became utterly obsolete when Civilization 2 was released in 1996. The amount of bugs and AI cheating that took place in Civilization 1 was horrific.

 

[sheek]

"Paradox games" - lulz

If you want to see a nasty interface, horrible AI, tedious micromanagement and uninspired repetitive combat then yes, Paradox wins.

Civ4 is a very good game for what it is, an improvement on all the previous ones except for the 3D perspective. Of course you get tired of the genre, especially after having played it for 15+ years (Civ 1) but it still has insane replay value, which you rarely get in modern games.

Civ is one of the few franchises from the 1990s not to have been ripped off or dumbed down.

Yes some aspects of Civ2 were simplified but complexity was added in other ways, and overall it balances out.

This.

Sid Meier also seems to be one of the very few remaining oldschool developers who haven't turned into mainstream dumbed down windbags like Molyneux. Funny that he's also one of those who don't constantly brag about their new game they're developing in the media like it was the fucking best thing since the creation of the earth.

Sid Meier didn't do Civ4 or any Civ since I think Civ 1. The designer behind them has been Brian Reynolds who did the work on Civ2 with Sid Meier basically a 'supervisor'.

Civ4 sucks. Every time I see the childish graphics I could puke. Besides this franchise has always suffered from over-abstraction. It doesnt feel like history any more, more like a parody.

It's never meant to be a historical simulation... for fuck's sake, that's why I said for the genre. Knights vs tanks and units moving one square every 50 years at the beginning (so it takes 1000 years to cross a continent) was never 'realistic'.

However even with that Civ4 does do quite good simulations. You can try "The Ancient Mediterranean" (TAM) total conversion mod for Civ4, with about 30 historical civs, and it amazingly turns out quite historical. Very good mod, btw.


Civ was always meant to be a fun computerized kind of board game. Like Risk! with a lot more complexity and factors to balance.

 

[BearBomber]

Civ was always meant to be a fun computerized kind of board game. Like Risk! with a lot more complexity and factors to balance.

>>>Risk is utter shit. I never could force myself to play it from the beginning to the end. For people interested in board games Risk is what Oblivion is for Codex. It is a fact that one of the easiest way to troll a boardgamer is to compare one of his games to Risk, or Monopoly.

 

[sheek]

Risk! is an amazing game. Of course it loses a lot when you play against a computer AI.

 

[BearBomber]

I don't know nothing about computer version, but I've played board version with real people. It was disaster. The game was slow, most of the time you just chose who to attack and I've newer witnessed end of the game. Everybody just chosed a winner when they got tired of playing this crap.

 

[sheek]

That sounds quite unusual.

Most games are over after 30-40 minutes, because the rules are designed to reinforce the stronger players.

If you use informal alliances that keep changing (ie, everybody unites against the current strongest) then it can stretch out but the balance will eventually shift as the weakest have nothing left to offer and are knocked out.

 

[poocolator]

Sorry guys, you're perplexed by the freedom present in Paradox's games and are attributing your confusion to the "shitty" UI's, but it just doesn't work that way.

CIV 4 is boring, and easy in the sense that you really don't need to know how states operate, just which units to build and in which order, and what to research. Ultimately, every game of CIV 4 boils down to a slugfest between the largest nations (always the most powerful). Government policies... suffrage... minorities... play no role in CIV 4, and religion as implemented is a joke. What's more is that CIV 4 barely provides improvement over CIV 3.

 

[Seboss]

>>>Risk is utter shit. I never could force myself to play it from the beginning to the end. For people interested in board games Risk is what Oblivion is for Codex. It is a fact that one of the easiest way to troll a boardgamer is to compare one of his games to Risk, or Monopoly.

So true.

 

[sheek]

Sorry guys, you're perplexed by the freedom present in Paradox's games and are attributing your confusion to the "shitty" UI's, but it just doesn't work that way.

No, apart from being painful to play, the AI is broken in Paradox games. Without AI there's no challenge and without challenge there's no game.

CIV 4 is boring, and easy in the sense that you really don't need to know how states operate, just which units to build and in which order, and what to research.

Wrong, it depends on the situation. There is no strategy that works every time because different things can happen. You start off in a desert with floodplains (high pop) but no production/shields you will want different wonders, those that maximize culture/trade, and religion instead of corporations. You start off in generally shitty terrain without bonuses you will miss out on the earlier tech and wonders and will have to go to war to steal land from others. Etc.

The 'strategy' part (non-existent in the games you seem to like) is recognizing opportunities, adapting and acting on them at the right time.

Ultimately, every game of CIV 4 boils down to a slugfest between the largest nations (always the most powerful).

Um, obviously the big powers will be large nations... what do you expect? But actually you can sometimes win with a tiny nation if you decide to go for early tech instead of growth, and keep adding the cumulative bonuses from being the first to access new wonders. You have to judge it right, because if you stay too small (relative to the others/the world size) it will eventually become impossible to keep that edge. Also you will need some inherent defence, eg being in an isolated corner out of the way of the big powers, on an island or you will eventually be crushed.

Government policies... suffrage... minorities... play no role in CIV 4, and religion as implemented is a joke.

Why should they? It's not a simulation. There's plenty of factors to juggle with already. Doing quite a lot well is better than trying to do everything (Paradox) including lots of boring irrelevant statistics poorly. Eg population size and improvement choice per province is completely irrelevant in EU3 but you can see the number of citizens to the exact integer. These are the kind of silly details that only clutter strategy games. Fluff for history nerds.

What's more is that CIV 4 barely provides improvement over CIV 3.

LOL, you really don't know what you're talking about do you.

 

[circ]

Sid hasn't lost it. Pirates! remake was great. Didn't enjoy it as much as the original for some reason, but it was the best remake I think I've ever seen. I wish Reynolds would remake AC.

 

[ever]

Railroads is good too

 

[kingcomrade]

Pirates! remake was great

dance dance dance dance <s>dance dance dance dance</s> swordfight swordfight swordfight swordfight

The whole game is a series of quick time events.

 

[AzraelCC]

I agree with sheek. I've played Paradox games and find them boring. I can handle games with lots of statistics (I'm a big fan of Dominions where even the age of your units are reflected in the statistics). However, a lot of statistics in Paradox games ARE fluff. It really feels like you serve as a number cruncher rather than a leader trying to balance your nation's growth.

Besides, to claim that Civ does not reflect how states operate clearly is a misunderstanding of the goals of the game, since it discounts the fact that Civ covers civilizations before the creation of the State. And suffrage? Emancipation is a civic tha becomes quite a priority because if another Civilization discovers and uses it, all other civilizations not using emancipation gets a big deduction in population happiness. Still, if you invested a lot on religion early on to keep your citizens happy, you can sustain a non-emancipatory civic nonetheless. That's strategically more complex than Paradox games with government policies just a bunch of modifiers on more statistics.

 

[1eyedking]

I agree with sheek. I've played Paradox games and find them boring. I can handle games with lots of statistics (I'm a big fan of Dominions where even the age of your units are reflected in the statistics). However, a lot of statistics in Paradox games ARE fluff. It really feels like you serve as a number cruncher rather than a leader trying to balance your nation's growth.

Besides, to claim that Civ does not reflect how states operate clearly is a misunderstanding of the goals of the game, since it discounts the fact that Civ covers civilizations before the creation of the State. And suffrage? Emancipation is a civic tha becomes quite a priority because if another Civilization discovers and uses it, all other civilizations not using emancipation gets a big deduction in population happiness. Still, if you invested a lot on religion early on to keep your citizens happy, you can sustain a non-emancipatory civic nonetheless. That's strategically more complex than Paradox games with government policies just a bunch of modifiers on more statistics.

But...but...all those numbers make me look smarter!

 

[poocolator]

Sorry guys, you're perplexed by the freedom present in Paradox's games and are attributing your confusion to the "shitty" UI's, but it just doesn't work that way.

No, apart from being painful to play, the AI is broken in Paradox games. Without AI there's no challenge and without challenge there's no game.

Agreed. They could do a better job with the AI; but so could Firaxis (or whoever developed CIV 4). Paradox AI has a lot more variability to account for especially with deeper games like Victoria.

CIV 4 is boring, and easy in the sense that you really don't need to know how states operate, just which units to build and in which order, and what to research.

Wrong, it depends on the situation. There is no strategy that works every time because different things can happen. You start off in a desert with floodplains (high pop) but no production/shields you will want different wonders, those that maximize culture/trade, and religion instead of corporations. You start off in generally shitty terrain without bonuses you will miss out on the earlier tech and wonders and will have to go to war to steal land from others. Etc.

So you need to know which units/structures to build and what to research according to your situation. In the floodplains case: you can concentrate on specialists while your peons build improvements, enabling you to basically concentrate on any industry, not just "culture/trade." Floodplain cities are actually the most sought-after IIRC.

And as for the shitty terrain: we can agree that early on (tech-wise/historically) cities located in the middle of a desert, with nothing around but a solitary oasis, will suffer. In the modern world however, this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. You should be able to develop a city as a manufacturing powerhouse, or a services powerhouse, but can't in CIV 4 because such things are not represented. Sure, a bank and a stock market will do their part in upping your income... but there should be plenty more you can do, just as in the real world.

The 'strategy' part (non-existent in the games you seem to like) is recognizing opportunities, adapting and acting on them at the right time.

Have you played any other Paradox game besides EU3? You should maybe try it before you go on to criticize the "depth of strategy" inherent. Have you ever had the need to disseminate nationalist ideals throughout your population, to unify the peoples, and to stop the anarcho-liberal revolts from bringing down your monarchy? My empire was falling apart because of this, and only nationalism could bring the people together. Remind you of a real-life scenario? I wasn't even playing as Germany I was playing as a highly-developed East-Asian nation which historically, had become a colony.

Where in CIV 4 are real-world situations reproduced? And don't give me that: "it's not a simulation so it doesn't have to approximate the real-world" bullshit-- if you're population consists of human beings, then human nature will always take precedence, unless (as is seemingly the case in CIV 4), they're all fucking nerve-stapled drones.

Time to calm down, now. I play CIV 4 multiplayer with my friends; I don't hate the game... it can be very fun.

Ultimately, every game of CIV 4 boils down to a slugfest between the largest nations (always the most powerful).

Um, obviously the big powers will be large nations... what do you expect? But actually you can sometimes win with a tiny nation if you decide to go for early tech instead of growth, and keep adding the cumulative bonuses from being the first to access new wonders. You have to judge it right, because if you stay too small (relative to the others/the world size) it will eventually become impossible to keep that edge. Also you will need some inherent defence, eg being in an isolated corner out of the way of the big powers, on an island or you will eventually be crushed.

Big Powers don't necessarily have to be large nations. Have you looked at Singapore? Or at the Venice of antiquity? Those are nations that can hold their own. Mercenary forces are implemented in EU3, but not in CIV 4. Nations like Venice relied heavily on mercenary forces.

From my experience with CIV 4, no smaller nation ever rose above the larger nations, be they AI, or other players. What you suggest is realistic (and probably doable with AI mods), but there's just no way you can improve your commerce techs while simultaneously improving your military techs; one way or another, you're going down when those bad boys decide your little nation is deliciously appealing. The diplomacy AI disallows peace. There are no precedents for peace, as there were historically. Once again, playing assuming your people human beings, this is unrealistic, even for a "non-simulation."

What stops the bigger powers (in this case, the larger nations, too) from engulfing every tiny state around them? In CIV 4 you weren't penalized provided the smaller state had no allies (and it normally didn't, considering it had nothing to offer them). In EU 3 (and other games from Paradox) you have prestige to worry about, which plays a role in one way or another, and you could also guarantee independence of smaller states, to keep alive as buffers... vassalize... annex... whatever. A high prestige meant inferior nations looked up to you, and could spell the difference between a world war started by them and blissful peace maintained by you.

Government policies... suffrage... minorities... play no role in CIV 4, and religion as implemented is a joke.

Why should they? It's not a simulation. There's plenty of factors to juggle with already. Doing quite a lot well is better than trying to do everything (Paradox) including lots of boring irrelevant statistics poorly. Eg population size and improvement choice per province is completely irrelevant in EU3 but you can see the number of citizens to the exact integer. These are the kind of silly details that only clutter strategy games. Fluff for history nerds.

Why should they? Umm... because they're present as the government civics (or whatever they're called). If you're going to implement them-- do them correctly.

You haven't really played, have you? There are no irrelevant factors or statistics, at all. I can say this with confidence. Population size contributes to manpower (number of fieldable troops), and goods production (and taxation in one degree, or another). Had you played for longer than 10 minutes with the goal to understand a little bit more the mechanics of the game, you'd realize this too. I don't even want to start on the effect improvements

What's more is that CIV 4 barely provides improvement over CIV 3.

LOL, you really don't know what you're talking about do you.

[/quote]
Good one.

Also, just out of curiosity... how exactly to you envision CIV 4 not being a simulation?

 

[sheek]

Look buddy...

You obviously are determined to believe Civ4 is a historical simulation.

As I said at the very start of this discussion I don't so I won't argue with you on that.

I judge a strategy game by how strategic it is, how replayable it is and how fun it is. When I want to know about alternate ways history might have gone I read a book.

My experience of Paradox games (EU2+3, HoI, Victoria, Crusader Kings) is that they are never very strategic all frustrating (juggling sliders), and boring waste of time because of the AI exploits. They aren't great strategy games and often they are not even very realistic simulations.

 

[poocolator]

Look buddy...

You obviously are determined to believe Civ4 is a historical simulation.

As I said at the very start of this discussion I don't so I won't argue with you on that.

I judge a strategy game by how strategic it is, how replayable it is and how fun it is. When I want to know about alternate ways history might have gone I read a book.

My experience of Paradox games (EU2+3, HoI, Victoria, Crusader Kings) is that they are never very strategic all frustrating (juggling sliders), and boring waste of time because of the AI exploits. They aren't great strategy games and often they are not even very realistic simulations.

They are great as strategy games.
Why have you played so many of Paradox's games if you hate them?
They are as realistic as it is humanly possible to program. I sure as shit haven't seen anything more realistic...
I read books too, surprise!

... buddy.

 

[sheek]

Why have you played so many of Paradox's games if you hate them?

Because the concepts behind them/what they promise they could do is unique (at least I haven't seen other games much like them). A realistic sort of sandbox grand historical strategy game where you can play as any country of the thousands that existed is an awesome concept.

I mostly use them now in a hands-off way when I'm bored, modifying some game variables, picking some tiny country and seeing how it plays out.

Apologies for the excessively condescending tone in my last post, Codex getting to me again.

 

[sheek]

Crusader Kings is probably the most 'playable' of Paradox's games, because it's more hands off. With Deus Vult and the big fan made patch it can be quite a fun game.

Victoria is fairly fun as well, EU3 and HoI2 are the worst.

 

[nomask7]

HoI2 was fun for a while. Civ4 was even more fun for a while. Hell, it's probably the most addictive game I've played since forever. I played it three times: (1) was still learning, (2) made a mistake, started again, (3) was too good and got bored. I plan to try it against a harder AI if I ever want to take a 30 hours continuous break from the real world again.

 

[RK47]

yep when i want to take it easy , i stuck with noble. Prince level they may surprise me, Monarch is the hardest I can take before it got too much.