Civilization IV (PC)

[GamerDad]

Andrew Bub's Civilization IV (PC) article - http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2870

[First]

Nice article.

I haven't gotten this game for my computer yet (it is on the list of things I want Santa to bring me), but I am an avid boardgame collector, and Sid has NEVER let me down in that format.

[GamerDad]

Ah First, but Sid has never once made a board game. Pity, because he's an avid player and he'd be very good at it.

You're thinking of Avalon Hill's Civilization board game maybe? Completely unrelated to the computer game. There's also Sid Meier's Civilization board game, based on Civ3, that Matt reviewed here I think. But Sid's involvement in that is mainly by taking a cut of the profit and letting them use Firaxis assets. It's from Eagle Games.

[First]

Right you are. I have somehow mixed his name with Reiner Knizia in my little brain. Those names aren't even CLOSE. Give my a few minutes to get the egg off of my face.

I feel now like I did a few months ago when my wife pointed out that I was singing the wrong words to a song from "The Music Man". I was walking around the house singing "Muncy, Indiana. Muncy, Indiana. Muncy, Indiana." She looked at me funny until she recognized the tune and then started laughing REALLY loudly. She ssid, "You mean, Gary, Indiana?" with tears of laughter in her eyes. I started crying too, but for a different reason.

I grew up too close to power lines, I guess.

[GamerDad]

Reiner is easily Sid's board game equivalent. His name sells games, and for pretty good reason. And... Muncy? That is pretty good!

[DickK]

Andrew -- good article and review. Got the game for Christmas and I've "only" managed around 40 hours of game time since. Yeah, I know, no life and a tolerant wife as long as I don't do this all the time. Can't actually, nasty thing called work keeps getting in the way normally -- have to do that or couldn't pay for the PC to put Civ on!

After just a few hours with it my thought was -- finally, Firaxis got Civ 3 right. That one's initial release was nowhere near the game it could of been or should have been. I knew why but it was still hard to forgive 'em. By the time Conquests was added it was a game worth having and playing but it somehow it just wasn't as much fun as Civ or Civ 2. This one is. That's a threat to the rest of my life but a really good thing for Firaxis. It will be interesting to see how this one evolves with the SDK and a couple expansions. I'm extremely glad to see they plan to continue their support for the 'open' game, creating as much a game system as a game.

I can't put my finger on why, but for some odd reason Civ4 reminds me of the original Civ. The simplicity of the UI perhaps? Maybe just the same kind of fun feel to it? Not sure but no matter how I look at it this one is a big winner.

Highly recommended to anyone who likes strategy games even a little. Also recommended to would-be designers of such--this is how its done.

[GamerDad]

One nice thing is that Civ3 had this sort of silly tone to it. Like Firaxis thought Civ was too serious. Civ4 keeps the cartoony look, but adds back the seriousness and grandeur people liked so much. Now if we could only get them to beef up the Civ personalities a bit and add back the actual stock footage wonder movies. They were just more effective, imo, especially stuff like Apollo program and the Statue of Liberty footage.

One thing that is concerning me is the victory options and the end game. I fear that by tackling the late game crawl problems Civ games have, they made the ending so rushed that the AI seems to have a clear edge simply because it can time a victory against the turn limit better than you can. Worse, your own AI doesn't help. If I'm racing for a Space Race victory, and there are 10 turns left, it makes no sense at all to have the AI suggest I make a Battleship that'll take 12 turns to make.

I've been experimenting with the victory conditions via the Custom Game menu, but even turning some of them off, if that turn limit is left on, the computer always seems to snatch victory from me before I can win on points. That shouldn't happen, I'd argue, at Warlord and Prince level.

Anyway, the only reason this bothers me is that I feel a smart player should be able to win without a long turn plan at lower difficulty and only at high difficulty should a player be required to play flawlessly or plan ahead and use "build recipes." Civ4 seems to require that too early, is my point.

[DickK]

...and add back the actual stock footage wonder movies. They were just more effective, imo, especially stuff like Apollo program and the Statue of Liberty footage.

Agree completely. I never understood the decision to go to a CG presentation. That has to be more expensive than buying the stock footage. But they didn't ask me and I'll bet they somehow missed askin' you, too.

I've been experimenting with the victory conditions via the Custom Game menu, but even turning some of them off, if that turn limit is left on, the computer always seems to snatch victory from me before I can win on points. That shouldn't happen, I'd argue, at Warlord and Prince level.

I have yet to actually finish a game tho' the one in have in progress now is getting there and I'll probably finish it -- culture victory for me is likely although I'm dominant enough that I could force just about anything I want. This one's at the 3rd diff level up and the setup I ended up with made it too easy. I've been experimenting with various map options, trying out the various civic options, exploring how to best make use of religion, etc, etc.

It may be a fluke--but I hope not--one thing I really like about the game I'm in now is that for the first time in a Civ game there's still land to be discovered and settled in the middle part of the game. Setup: Large map, epic speed. 6 civs were on one very large continent and two were on a smaller one just off shore. Unknown to all there was a second continent and a large island chain to the south. By the time I discovered it the continent had developed several large, well developed and interconnected barbarian cities. And I discovered the hard way that barbarians are no pushover now. Managed to seize the city I found just inland from the coast but the AI mounted a large and very effective counterattack. My invading army of 4 knights and 2 pikemen was wiped out in 2 turns, mostly by attacking longbowman and axemen. My return a couple decades later was much more forceful!

Now if we could only get them to beef up the Civ personalities a bit...

While doing the testing for Civ3 I wrote a paper for Firaxis about this very subject. I really felt they were missing the proverbial boat on that score--something they got right in SMAC they haven't applied to Civ. And the whole thing with leaders bothers me. A major force in history has been succession of leadership, peaceful and otherwise. It's all missing because the player=leader=one pseudo-person. I understand the choices they made but I don't agree with them and its still a major weakness in Civ4.

Despite all that, Civ4 is excellent and fun.

[Freakhead]

Civ2 had some silliness where you had Elvis' as entertainers to keep the people happy.

Civ IV pet peeves so far are the 20 choices and 5 categories of civics. I think it's too much. All those choices really are needed and it just seems to clutter the game up a bit.

CAnt' see as much map as you could in Civ2 and the eye candy slows everything down and makes it harder to distinguish pieces on the map.

Workers will hide out in one of your citites if they run out of things to do. Especially annoying if you have them improving the nearest city option.

So far the AI kicks my ass at Noble difficulty. This is supposed to be the starting difficulty for previous Civ players. Hell in one game I got taken over before I had 4 cities.

Is it me or is your success in the game more dramatically afffected by the terrain surrounding your starting position than before? I've played a few multiplayer games and a few single player games and sometimes you just get royally screwed on starting terrain and there's little you can do about it.

It's a good game. Just not sure if the game is any more fun than it was 10 years ago.

[Troy]

Civ IV pet peeves so far are the 20 choices and 5 categories of civics. I think it's too much. All those choices really are needed and it just seems to clutter the game up a bit.

I love the civics approach. I get much more flexibility out of it. I can move to a war state by taking Theocracy, Vassalage and Police State or push for science and culture with free speech and free religion, or cut costs with other civics. It really isn't that complicated once you figure out what stacks with what.

Compare it to the old Civ approach where there were really only two decisions - do I go for democracy or not?

[GamerDad]

Hey Troy, just curious, what difficulty are you handling/winning at?

[Troy]

I've won on Noble pretty consistently, but not convincingly. I'm mostly experimenting on Warlord, trying new strategies without much opposition. Still, I was surprised by a loss to the Americans on Warlord the other day.

One thing I am learning the hard way is that Tokugawa has to be eliminated immediately.

I'm not the kind of gamer who figures out games quickly or looks for hints online, though. If I did, I'm sure I could do better on higher levels. But the computer opponents can be very tricky.

I do want to try more MP. It really works well as an online game, but is not made for PBEM.

Troy

[GamerDad]

Count me in for multiplay.
I'm still trying to get to maximization. In Noble games I get beaten, I'm always in the top 3, but someone gets me with one of the esoteric victories. I need to learn to maximize or recipe the tech tree, I think, and frankly I'm a little disappointed that this level of play is required at Noble difficulty.

Maybe I'm automizing my workers too much?

[Freakhead]

I love the civics approach. I get much more flexibility out of it. I can move to a war state by taking Theocracy, Vassalage and Police State or push for science and culture with free speech and free religion, or cut costs with other civics. It really isn't that complicated once you figure out what stacks with what.

Compare it to the old Civ approach where there were really only two decisions - do I go for democracy or not?

I just figure everyone will narrow the choices down to 5 or 6 combinations anyway and that will cover 99% of the players playing the game.

[Troy]

Maybe I'm automizing my workers too much?

I do auto workers, too, but find that when I am beaten it is always by Spaceship victory. Never anything too esoteric.

I think I eschew the specialists too much. An old civ habit - letting cities grow to 20 or so.

Quick starts matter, so I often rush to bronze working and level trees to speed production in the early stages. And founding a religion, while nice, is not a crucial step. Sure, you get some extra gold, but there are more useful techs out there.

Oh, and the Oracle is probably the most important early wonder.

We should set up MP for this weekend.