Civ 4, is it better when all is said and done?

[Kalfear]

Well to answer one question im playing at Noble level (thats the 4th ranked AI level), Epic speed, raging barbarians, no space victory (as its a cheap way to win), max number of opponents.

 

So no im not playing at a low AI level.

 

Civ 4 just isnt as challenging as Civ 3 was.

 

As I said, in some areas its a better game but overall I dont think it is.

 

Its definately not going to have the staying power that Civ 3 had, after 3 games Im already getting to the point Ill take a break from game. That didnt happen with Civ 3 till like game 25/30 when it was released.

 

As for MP, im sure ill eventually check it out but I like long games and most MP gamers (as I found out from civ 3 mp games) want instant gratification games (small world, start in modern age, ect). Those bum rush games dont really appeal to me or require to much stratagy to be honest.

 

Anyways, was just a question, for me I think Civ 2 and 3 were better overall games then Civ 4 is to be honest.

[Dark Wastl]

I'm one of the "loved part 2, loves part 4" ones

 

The only problem I have with the game, is the way the AI cheats. This has been done forever, although I didn't really notice it in Civ II. The most obvious were Civ IV and Colonization.

 

I'm not talking about any kind of advantage the AI has with increasing level of difficulty, that has to be in the game, but the way the AI can create units at an enormous rate without anything else suffering because of it, how it has units appearing out of nowhere or how it can use them in a way you aren't allowed to, it's simply stupid.

 

I actually used the map editor, to confirm the things I noticed. Like how the AI is able to use a trireme to cross the ocean, even though he shouldn't be able to...

 

 

Still, great and very time-consuming games

[Llyranor]

As for MP, im sure ill eventually check it out but I like long games and most MP gamers (as I found out from civ 3 mp games) want instant gratification games (small world, start in modern age, ect). Those bum rush games dont really appeal to me or require to much stratagy to be honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you shouldn't play with random people.

[Enoch]

Well to answer one question im playing at Noble level (thats the 4th ranked AI level), Epic speed, raging barbarians, no space victory (as its a cheap way to win), max number of opponents.

 

So no im not playing at a low AI level.

 

Civ 4 just isnt as challenging as Civ 3 was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know that I would call that a 'high' level. It ain't Settler, but it's definitely sub-Noble (Noble being the level where neither the player nor the AI get any advantages). You might find Civ 4 more challenging if you stop tilting the game in your favor with your settings.

 

Raging Barbs hurts the AI more than it does a human player, because the AI doesn't know to post fog-busting warriors to stop the barbs from spawning. The high number of opponents also aids the human player because it opens up opportunities for early rush tactics, which the AI generally doesn't do.

 

Turning off space race, though, is the main reason you're probably finding the game too easy. This dramatically hurts the AI more than it does the human player. It is generally the AI's prefered victory type, and if you turn it off, you're essentially rendering an entire development strategy (get 5-6 cities and crank up the science) ineffective. You're basically taking away the main threat that the AI poses to an aggressive human player late in the game. Knowing that Mansa or Ghandi have launched Apollo certainly makes an attempt at a late-game military win much more interesting & challenging.

[Enoch]

I'm one of the "loved part 2, loves part 4" ones

 

The only problem I have with the game, is the way the AI cheats. This has been done forever, although I didn't really notice it in Civ II. The most obvious were Civ IV and Colonization.

 

I'm not talking about any kind of advantage the AI has with increasing level of difficulty, that has to be in the game, but the way the AI can create units at an enormous rate without anything else suffering because of it, how it has units appearing out of nowhere or how it can use them in a way you aren't allowed to, it's simply stupid.

 

I actually used the map editor, to confirm the things I noticed. Like how the AI is able to use a trireme to cross the ocean, even though he shouldn't be able to...

 

 

Still, great and very time-consuming games

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Galleys can cross oceans when the ocean square is within a civ's cultural borders. If you saw a galley in a neutral ocean square, it's a bug that I am unaware of. I've done my share of peeking with the editor, and I've never seen an AI unit on a landmass that should be isolated until Optics.

 

The only units that appear out of nowhere are barbarians, wild animals, and the units that each civ starts the game with. As for unit production rates, their cities work exactly the same as yours do, except that on difficulties above Noble, they get a % reduction on the costs of everything. They also get difficulty-related bonuses on happiness, health, and city & military upkeep.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Enoch

[metadigital]

IMO, Civ 4 is clearly better than Civ 3.  The removal of pollution and corruption alone (replaced by health and city maintenance, respectively) put it over the top.  Also, the better tech tree and more varied infrastructure improvements both take what used to be mechanistic decisions and make them interesting.  I haven't tried the multiplayer yet (need to hone my skills further first), so I can't talk about that. 

 

Overall, I doubt I'll play it as obsessively as I played 1 or 2, but  I don't have that kind of free time anymore anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have to concur with Enoch here (even though I still have only played ONE game

[Kalfear]

Well to answer one question im playing at Noble level (thats the 4th ranked AI level), Epic speed, raging barbarians, no space victory (as its a cheap way to win), max number of opponents.

 

So no im not playing at a low AI level.

 

Civ 4 just isnt as challenging as Civ 3 was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know that I would call that a 'high' level. It ain't Settler, but it's definitely sub-Noble (Noble being the level where neither the player nor the AI get any advantages). You might find Civ 4 more challenging if you stop tilting the game in your favor with your settings.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL Enoch, Ill bite. how is playing at noble level definately sub noble level?

 

Sorry yas totally lost me on that bit!

 

As for the settings, gotta disagree,

 

Barbs effect human players just as much and have now twice almost halted my early development (remember only played 3 complete games) because of them. So having raging barbs INCREASES, not decreases the game difficulty challenge.

 

As for Space Race, I removed it SO I DIDNT WIN the cheap victory. At that point in the game its easy to match (at a minimum) or out do the computer. So removing the space race option eliminates a cheap win senario from the player. It doesnt eliminate a entire tech line as other items are included in those tech lines which are of great help. Just eliminates the "option" of winning the game cheaply for human players.

 

Should point out, if the computer is actually beating you by using the space race victory, you shouldnt be commenting on others abilities and settings as you have a long way to go in learning the game! No one should EVER lose to the computer in a space race senario! EVER!

 

Lastly, the more AI you play against, the less room to expand and the harder it is to stay ahead in tech. The computer loves to share techs with each other at a insane rate. If you limit the number of AI player you limit the computers ability to gain techs quickly. Making the game easier for yourself to stay ahead of them all.

 

Perhaps you should try the settings before just deciding I made my settings so the game would be easier. I made those settings to INCREASE the game difficulty while still playing at NOBLE level setting.

 

Give it a try, think you will be drastically surprised and probably quite fustrated!

Edited February 5, 2006 by Kalfear

[Kalfear]

As for MP, im sure ill eventually check it out but I like long games and most MP gamers (as I found out from civ 3 mp games) want instant gratification games (small world, start in modern age, ect). Those bum rush games dont really appeal to me or require to much stratagy to be honest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why you shouldn't play with random people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL, not much choice when none of your freinds will play against yas anymore in the Civ games ! LOL

 

Random People were the only option I had, but it got boring fast!

 

Civ 3 MP really turned me off of MP games for the Civ line. Either they wanted games like I discribed or they would tell you up front about how great they are and they play at such and such setting, then soon as game started you realized they play at warlord or lower at the best and game was no challenge! Hense no fun!

[alanschu]

Should point out, if the computer is actually beating you by using the space race victory, you shouldnt be commenting on others abilities and settings as you have a long way to go in learning the game! No one should EVER lose to the computer in a space race senario! EVER!

 

If we should never lose to the computer in a space race, then why do you disable it?

 

I found Civ3 to be just as easy on the "balanced" difficulty as Civ4. Actually a bit easier as the stack of doom is goofy.

[Nick_i_am]

Battlefeild tactics in civ4 are vastly superior to anything civ3 could produce. Combat in civ3 was, frankly, boring. The 'stack of doom' was really the only option, and seige weapons were useless.

 

and how I loved playing 'pollution wack-a-mole' with an army of engineers in the modern age.

 

Honestly, Kalfear is the first person I have ever seen actively defending civ3 over 4, and ultimatly, it probably comes down to the users tastes over city micromanagement.

 

'Barbs effect human players just as much'

 

That really depends on your skill :D

[213374U]

If we should never lose to the computer in a space race, then why do you disable it?

Because if you don't want to lose, you are forced to finish it before the AI does. Which is a forced, artificial endgame as soon as the technologies are discovered, as the AI goes for it even if it's painfully obvious they don't stand a chance. I don't much like space victory either. It keeps my industrial centers busy building useless crap when they could be building overwhelming amounts of stealth bombers... "

[Kaftan Barlast]

I got Civ4 from school but I havent played it yet or any earlier part of the Civ ilisation series. Whats the best way to play it? Should i run a campaign or play against some friends?

[Llyranor]

If you have friends, then play with them.

[Nick_i_am]

And also, Civ4

[thepixiesrock]

I wouldn't recomend it.

[Enoch]

LOL Enoch, Ill bite. how is playing at noble level definately sub noble level?

 

Sorry yas totally lost me on that bit!

 

As for the settings, gotta disagree,

 

Barbs effect human players just as much and have now twice almost halted my early development (remember only played 3 complete games) because of them. So having raging barbs INCREASES, not decreases the game difficulty challenge.

 

As for Space Race, I removed it SO I DIDNT WIN the cheap victory. At that point in the game its easy to match (at a minimum) or out do the computer. So removing the space race option eliminates a cheap win senario from the player. It doesnt eliminate a entire tech line as other items are included in those tech lines which are of great help. Just eliminates the "option" of winning the game cheaply for human players.

 

Should point out, if the computer is actually beating you by using the space race victory, you shouldnt be commenting on others abilities and settings as you have a long way to go in learning the game! No one should EVER lose to the computer in a space race senario! EVER!

 

Lastly, the more AI you play against, the less room to expand and the harder it is to stay ahead in tech. The computer loves to share techs with each other at a insane rate. If you limit the number of AI player you limit the computers ability to gain techs quickly. Making the game easier for yourself to stay ahead of them all.

 

Perhaps you should try the settings before just deciding I made my settings so the game would be easier. I made those settings to INCREASE the game difficulty while still playing at NOBLE level setting.

 

Give it a try, think you will be drastically surprised and probably quite fustrated!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've played a few raging barbs games, and, yes, they will slow down your development, but they slow down your enemies just as much. The difference is that there is a prophylactic measure that you can take (posting cheap units in the wild to eliminate the fog of war) that the AI does not. Thus, raging barbs at Noble level actually helps a good player-- they are an annoyance to the human, but can cripple an AI Civ. (At higher levels, the AI starts with a couple of Archers, so raging barbs is more equivocal there.)

 

As for the threat of the AI winning a space race, on the higher difficulty levels (it gets really hard on Emperor+), the AI gets such bonuses in research and production that it takes a very well-planned and developed empire to match them in the space race. The use of Spies to sabotage production is necessary, and even then, narrow losses are not uncommon. So good players do lose to AI space races, when they're on difficulty levels that challenge them.

 

I understand that you don't want to be forced into one particular victory type. But why then do you go along with the AI's game when they start building the ship? Why not just get some allies together and wipe those techie Civs out? Or simply plan your conquest to eliminate or cripple the civs most likely to launch first (it should be clear who the main threats are as early as the middle ages)? You have options. The problem with eliminating it as a victory option is that the AI isn't particularly good at going for any of the other victories (except Score).

 

On the # of Civs, it's a bit of a two-edged sword. Yes, the tech-trading does mean that the AI research will progess faster as you say. But when you start packed together with a few rivals, quite often (depending on your resource draw and UU) you can overwhelm one or more of them with a very early axeman or chariot rush. Many players find cramped maps easier for this reason-- they can quickly double-up on any competitor, and enemy capitals tend to be very good city locations (most vulnerable of which tend to be the few with early wonders or holy cities).

Edited February 5, 2006 by Enoch

[Kalfear]

If we should never lose to the computer in a space race, then why do you disable it?

Because if you don't want to lose, you are forced to finish it before the AI does. Which is a forced, artificial endgame as soon as the technologies are discovered, as the AI goes for it even if it's painfully obvious they don't stand a chance. I don't much like space victory either. It keeps my industrial centers busy building useless crap when they could be building overwhelming amounts of stealth bombers... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

bingo 213374U

 

You disable it because yolu dont want to be forced to go the cheap route!

 

I mean its a no brainer you can win with the space race but if you refuse to make the items, you lose regardless how far ahead you are.

 

So disabling it makes the most sence.

[metadigital]

I got Civ4 from school but I havent played it yet or any earlier part of the Civ ilisation series. Whats the best way to play it? Should i run a campaign or play against some friends?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Civ 4 demo is particularly well designed and will take one through all the bullet points of Civilization godliness. Don't get to hung up on the details, just watch the effects of decisions ...

 

Next, read the manual

[alanschu]

If we should never lose to the computer in a space race, then why do you disable it?

Because if you don't want to lose, you are forced to finish it before the AI does. Which is a forced, artificial endgame as soon as the technologies are discovered, as the AI goes for it even if it's painfully obvious they don't stand a chance. I don't much like space victory either. It keeps my industrial centers busy building useless crap when they could be building overwhelming amounts of stealth bombers... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So having the space race would make the game more difficult, would it not? There are other ways to stop the space race, as Enoch noted.

 

My solution was to literally attack the crap out of them. If they wish to build SS components while I'm invading them, then that's their perogative.

Edited February 6, 2006 by alanschu

[Kaftan Barlast]

I got Civ4 from school but I havent played it yet or any earlier part of the Civ ilisation series. Whats the best way to play it? Should i run a campaign or play against some friends?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Civ 4 demo is particularly well designed and will take one through all the bullet points of Civilization godliness. Don't get to hung up on the details, just watch the effects of decisions ...

 

Next, read the manual

[Llyranor]

My solution was to literally attack the crap out of them.  If they wish to build SS components while I'm invading them, then that's their perogative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My counter of choice

[alanschu]

Of course I had the Pentagon, with barracks, Vassalage, and Theocracy.

 

 

Actually one of my Noble games I had fallen behind techwise (because of wars) to the Indians. When I invaded them, I was typically using Cavalry and Riflemen, against his infantry. But because of the huge amount of upgrades I could give my guys, everyone had +25% against gunpowder and varying levels of +Strength, Armor (he did have the odd tank) and so forth. Despite being technologically inferior by a small bit, I was still able to do very well because of the effective experience my troops all had. It was very satisfying.

[Llyranor]

It was, wasn't it?

[alanschu]

Yes, yes it was.

[alanschu]

Though I do think they should allow planes to spot submarines.