View Full Version : What do you like about Civ 4
I wonder what you most like about it. At CFC the GD is a mess with loads of people naming loads of cool things about the game. Lets sums things up! [yeah]
I myself like the languague the units speak. It realy adds something to your game-experience. Also, the animated resources (like the pigs) are great! :)
I heard the ingame music is great but I havent realy listened yet.
grahamiam
02-11-2005, 17:09
i like that, in the options, you can choose to display a clock in the playscreen :) helps me get to bed at a reasonable hour!
actually, i like almost all of it, but most of all, I like that it's not Civ3.5, but a completely different game.
I like the fact that you definitely need to make a lot more strategic considerations in a single game to get your empire into a healthy state. There does not seem to be an easy single strategy to overpower the opposition, and the amount of viable choices available in both SP and MP seems to have increased tenfold compared to civ3.
(Hmm, that sounds like some piece of marketing talk to sell more games [lol], however it actually really is how I see it)
I like it too.
It seems the cards you are dealt with traits and terrain dictate a lot of your research path. Chopping forest are pretty huge to get a settler out early and use for wonders. I think the best to chop are along rivers since they give health and will be developed into farms for food. Attacking cities is difficult and even when you do defeat them the culture pressure is enormous from the surrounding established cities. Pillaging cottages, gold, resources etc. becomes a more important strategy to me.
A couple more things...when you do a close up on the crabs it looks like they are arguing with each other and I think it's funny that Al Gore's picture is next to the internet tech.
I like the fact that playing different tribes will force you to play a different style game. I did not like the fact that for almost everyone in C3C getting the philo jump was the way to go. The traits seem to make as big a difference in how you play as to the cards you are dealt in surrounding terrain...
One little bitch though... I've played 3 games so far and never had iron/marble/stone in my territory. At least without clobbering someone for it :D
The graphics, the concept of religion, and, like Kemal said, the amount of possibilities. Although I'm convinced that people like Cartouche Bee and SirPleb will find exploits in the future. ;)
I don't like the new combat situation: the upgrading stuff and no difference between attack and defense value. But the advantages outweigh that by far.
Oh, and what I also dislike: units movement is slooww.
You do realize that for long distance movement such as ships, you should be able to almost instantly move them by right clicking on the destination tile?
As for exploits, maybe they already have been found, but people are reluctant to release them? [mischief]
On a more serious note, against AI opponents there will always be exploits, but fortunately, Civ4 is primarily a MP game now, and humans at least always start on equal footing in this regard.
Oh and Matrix mentions another thing I like about civ4: the combat system. Finally, no longer will you be losing 7 swordsmen on 2 mercs, or other bizarre fights, as easily as happened in civ4, even though indeed each unit only has one strength=hits value.
Shabbaman
03-11-2005, 10:04
quote:Originally posted by Kemal
Finally, no longer will you be losing 7 swordsmen on 2 mercs, or other bizarre fights, as easily as happened in civ4, even though indeed each unit only has one strength=hits value.
Instead, you loose all your units on a single longbowman :(
Okay, heavy losses can still happen.... but you can't blame the RNG on these battles anymore, there must be some other reason then... [:p]
quote:Originally posted by Kemal
even though indeed each unit only has one strength=hits value.
That's not very true. A praetorian, for example can have a strength of 7.2/8, or 1.0/8. That's 9/10 and 1/8, thus 2.7 and 0.375 men.
And I agree it's fairer, but still that has nothing to do with the fact that attack and defense values are gone, and that all these experience bonusses exist.
Shabbaman
03-11-2005, 12:36
Because longbowmen are BROKEN ;)
Well, it still has only one strength, whether it is 7.2/8 or 1.0/8. And it does matter, since the amount of damage a unit does to the other unit is also dependant of the strength value it has.
Furthermore, the amount of damage the unit can take also directly depends on the unit strength. So whereas in civ3, a warrior would only need to get lucky 4 times to defeat a sword. However, in civ4, this is next to impossible, since a warrior would not only need to get lucky to win a round vs the sword, but the amount of damage it deals would be much smaller compared to the amount of damage a sword does if it wins the round, because the warrior's strength value is so much lower.
Adding to this, because the sword also has a higher strength to start with, it can also take much more damage compared to the warrior, meaning the warrior needs to win even more rounds to come out on top.
However, since this all compares to the current strength value of the unit, a wounded sword will have much more problems fighting warriors, since it is not fighting at full strength anymore.
Since experience boni directly affect strength in most cases, they do influence the outcome of a fight considerably! For example in Shabba's longbowmen case, with the correct promotions and a moderately cultural developed city it is defending, the longbowmen might be even more potent than an infantry in defense, making his losses much more logical, especially since the longbowmen has first strike capability as well, which sees it take much less damage in battles than regular units.
Shabbaman
03-11-2005, 13:06
The first strike is very potent indeed. I like the unit promotions, but unfortunately the "v.s. archery" bonus has only showed up once so far (in my limited playtime, since I'm extremily busy atm. I even have to do, yuck, overtime tomorrow...).
Socrates
03-11-2005, 14:55
Haven't bought the game yet, but I already find the combat system to be the best of the series ! :) Don't tell me about longbowmen or stuff, just the concept behind the combat system. Kemal said it all, so I can only repeat. Wounded units will be a greater handicap than in the past (fairer and it makes sense). A feeble unit is less likely to win and less likely to do some great damage. But the more damage you do to a unit, the more feeble it gets and the more damage you'll probably do thereafter on top of it. It seems to be somewhat "exponential" (ok, I should say "cumulative" (as opposed to "additive" if I got it right)). No more attack and defense values is a very good choice, that didn't make sense at all, and I think that the system of promotions and unit classes largely make up for it. The stupid example of the past was Civ3's longbowmen, that intelligent humans would NEVER build (damn that 1-defense value). The old attack and defense values were mixing the strategical level and the tactical levels and that didn't work very well.
Kemal, let me sum you up to see whether I got it right.
A swordsman had value 6, a warrior 2. Does this mean a swordsman does thrice as much damage as well as that it has 6 hitpoints and a warrior just 2?
The exact formula is a bit more complex, but in general, my assumption is that this is more or less correct yes. Btw, once more modern units appear, you can start seeing the weaker units' health bars scale down to reflect their weakness on the battlefield at that time, iirc.
I like quite a few things, but there's one thing I thoroughly hate: the 3 graphics.
Complete waste of comp resources making the game slow and restricting the overview. Zooming out to 2d view doesnt help: you get to see all units on the head making it very difficult to distinguish them.
Why on earth did someone think 3D was a good thing for TBS. This is no FPS, this is a strategy game, I want decent overview, 3D is just annoying. And 2d would have allowed for more detailed graphs as well.
No 3d would have saved Firaxis the embarresment not testing the game with most common graphic cards and their most recent drivers as well.
IDIOTS!
Rik Meleet
04-11-2005, 01:24
I like that the Economics tech picture looks like a woman with a dildo up her arse .... [assw]
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Rik Meleet/200511412439_Economics.JPG
4.78KB
I don't see it, Rik.
But I've made a poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137454) about some major new elements in Civ4, where you can say whether you like it or not. ;)
Another poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=137445) of mine is about the tech tree being translated...
I like the fact that you can pop a settler from a hut by founding your first city right next to it!
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/banzai/2005114163348_settlerfromhut.JPG
55.16KB
:D
Rik Meleet
04-11-2005, 16:53
WOW !!
DrAlimentado
04-11-2005, 17:00
quote:Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I like that the Economics tech picture looks like a woman with a dildo up her arse .... [assw]
http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Rik Meleet/200511412439_Economics.JPG
4.78 KB
[lol]
actually I think it is a vibrator as it has a power cord right?
Thought it was a tampax...
digger760
07-11-2005, 11:30
Dislikes:
I get a feeling of Call to Power, where there is too much many domestic options, you end up playing 50-100 turns and might have built 1 por 2 offensive units. This is re-inforced by the fact that I have played a game upto ~100AD and not a single battle between the AI!
Can't see units on Auto explore (perhaps there is an option to enable this?)
Build Queue, in the city screen is all pictures. I have to mouse over each one to see how long it takes to build. My work around plan is to leave the build queue empty and normally i get a pop up later asking what to build and this is a much better summary of items to build.
Sometimes I have been given the end of turn option when units can still move.
Very hard to see resources without the toggle resource display thing on. I'm not keen on the gtraphics at all, very hard on the eye sight to distinguish things
Likes:
I like the breakdown of happiness, heath and relationships with other civs (i.e +2 for this -1 for something else)
So far I like the concept of civics and religion, they have certainly added something fresh to the game
I like the worker options, i.e having to build a road and quarry to connect stone, i took a bit of a hit in my first game not relising you had to build more than a road to connect a resource.
So far I like the upgrade options, but must admit i have no clue what to pick when they arise.
Overall - A very different game compared to Civ1, 2 and 3. Gonna take alot of getting used to.
Digger, you'll get used to the graphics and will recognise everything ok later on. :)
Melifluous
07-11-2005, 16:35
quote:Originally posted by Banzai
I like the fact that you can pop a settler from a hut by founding your first city right next to it!
Quote from manual.
quote:
Note that it is only possible to get a settler or worker from a village on Warlord or lower difficulties.
Shame on you!
Melifluous
Melifluous
07-11-2005, 16:52
Oh and to keep on topic
I like the way if you try and attack someone by the right click move and dont let go of the button it shows you a breakdown of how it sees the fight going.
Cavalry WILL NOT beat Pikemen [:P]
Melifluous
quote:Originally posted by Melifluous
quote:Originally posted by Banzai
I like the fact that you can pop a settler from a hut by founding your first city right next to it!
Quote from manual.
quote:
Note that it is only possible to get a settler or worker from a village on Warlord or lower difficulties.
Shame on you!
Melifluous
[blush2]
Hey... when you experiment with things you do not start on diety right?
:)
What I really like most about this game is the very big difference with previous Civ releases. A lot of new things to be learned. :)
The promotion system is really nice, the unit specific abilities are as well! War elephants and maceman for example have a strength of 8 but the elephant can't fortify and have a bonus vs. Mounten Units while maceman can fortify and have a bonus vs. Melee units. One other thing I like is you can see defending stacks in cities, city defense bonus etc. although I would have preferred the ability to investigate cities. Haven't found it, may have missed it.
Another thing I like is Firaxis got rid of the somewhat cramped min/max number of turns to research techs and the flexibility in the tech tree. The in game tech tree isn't very clear however which techs are needed for a certain improvement / unit / tech etc. You really need to check what are the prereqs for a unit for example.
Although the worker routine seems to be an upgraded version of the Civ III routine I really like the double movement for workers and their workspeed. In Civ III I hated jungle tiles just because it took so long to remove them. In Civ IV it is 4 turns max iirc. Although workers can get instructions to do 2 things with one command (like building a farm on a forest which will provide shields for chopping plus irrigation) most of the time you'll want to split the instruction in 2 seperate steps. But maybe it is jsut something to get used to. ;) Personally I still have little confidence in automated workers.
I really like the new <s>corruption</s> maintenance and <s>pollution</s> health models. There are measurements to the negative effects of both although keeping good health very much depends on an abundant availability of health resources. Fish, crab and clam add health but are among the first to be pillaged once the AI declare war, very often out of the blue.
The city governer looks pretty good although I haven't gone into detailed analysis how well it does its job. Good thing is cities are adjusted immediately once you get a happy face out of a deal for example.
What I really have to get used to is the Diplo (F4) screen. What's good is that 2 mouseclicks are enough to see what the AI is willing to trade. The single most annoying thing is that once talks are finished with an AI you go back to the map instead of the main F4 screen you came from. So you need to press F4 once more to check the next AI and so on. Another annoying thing is that resources and techs from AI are the only stuff available from overview screens, not other things like techs AI doesn't have, cash, gpt, treaties etc. So if you want to do a check of AI status you still need to go and talk with all of them. [rant]
Something major to get used to in Diplo is wether the AI wants to trade a tech / resource. First of all I am under the impression this is determined in the IT. I've never seen a change of techs available for trade during a normal turn. The other thing is the mechanism which makes an AI willing to trade a tech. I'm pretty sure religion plays a role and that's about it.
Things I don't like:
- Advisor screens, F1 and military advisors are the major suckers.
- Peace deal exploit.
- In game World Builder.
- Black terrain on a number of platforms.
- Mouse-overs to often don't work.
- Lack of info about AI whereabouts
All-in-all a superb game imo (Firaxis [goodjob]), released to soon however.
Well, indeed F4, F1 and F3 suck big but they must have left this for ainwood to fix with a new civ4 version of Mapstat.
Instead of going to F4 you can double click in the right low corner on the name of the leader to get him to talk.
Trading techs is not an easy thing as well. But once figured out, it might be the key to the game on higher difficulty levels. So far, I've been rather comfortable with Writing-Alphabet gambit. Sometimes though, AIs will not trade bronze working however.
killercane
08-11-2005, 01:32
Having played several games so far, I dont think Ive been beaten by the AI to alphabet yet below the 2 hardest diffulty levels, even after going towards bronze and the other stuff. If the AI is *so* smart and improved, it seems that at least one of them would beeline to alpha for the trading opportunities to screw the human who doesnt have all the first and second tier techs.
Rik Meleet
08-11-2005, 02:11
@Beam:
F4: By clicking on the leaderhead so that it gets a yellow-border. If you look behind your face you see the techs you have, but that AI doesn't. Same with resources.
F1: It really bugs me that you can't change the builds there like you could in Civ 3. Nor that you can go to the city-screen via the F1 screen.
F3: What's wrong with it Akots ?? I find it working well.
F5: Not very workable setup.
Pastorius
25-11-2005, 15:13
Flashback: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=142767
Nice. ;) I made an attempt to make a Civ1 mod for Civ3, but when doing so sooner or later you get stuck because the tiles were rotated 45°.
If the units are made Civ1 style I would certainly love that, because then you could simply play looking from the top, like in Civ1.
I converted the earth map of civ1 to civ3 :D
Sir Eric
28-11-2005, 07:14
So far I've only managed about 4 hours with the game so.....
-Likes-
Pretty much everything not listed below.
The, Just...one....more....turn option on retiring.
-Dislikes-
The inability to determine how many opponents, and which ones, to have.
The close proximity to your opponent.
Hatschepsut as an Egyptian Leader.
Anyone feel like a 2 year PBEM?
quote:Originally posted by Sir Eric
... Anyone feel like a 2 year PBEM?
It seems that 1x1 is the only option left out. PBEMs with many players would take horrendous amount of time. 3 players though might be possible and might be even 4 within a year if very dedicated. [lol]
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.