This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is Civilization IV a good place to start learning about 4x games?

#21ElDudorinoPosted 8/31/2013 10:58:55 AM(edited)
This topic shows a lot more love for Civ 5 than I'm used to seeing. Granted I've never played the expansions for Civ 5, which I hear are quite good, but I found the base game to be pretty bad and I went back to Civ 4 after a handful of games. In version 1.0 the enemy civilizations were extremely stupid and would surrender their entire empire to you after you killed a couple of their units. Then they patched the game to make enemies "less likely to surrender," so instead of surrendering IMMEDIATELY they would just charge their units at you uselessly until their army was whittled down to nothing and THEN surrender. What a joke.

They had a clever idea with the combat by eliminating the option of just stacking 50 of the same unit in a single tile and devastating everything in your way. Each tile only gets one unit and they can move in 6 directions, and ranged units have ACTUAL range so you can rank your archers behind your infantry and after upgrades you can even put a second row of archers behind that. This is also huge for exploiting your environment, for example if you line up archers across a river they can shoot over it. It does make moving units around a serious pain but it's a great idea. I think that giving cities their own defenses was a cool idea, too. The problem is that the enemy AI has no idea how to actually use any kind of strategy in their formations and they'll just charge their units idiotically into No Man's Land to be shot to pieces. It's ridiculous.

The whole Empire Happiness thing is also handled terribly, in my opinion. And City-States? A total mess. Some of them are WAY too overpowered and exploitable, and the others are free developed cities for your empire with only minimal diplomatic drawbacks to conquering them. Also, road upkeep is a bit much in Civ 5.

I liked their ambition in finally changing the formula significantly for Civ 5 as far as combat, but I think they just did a really bad job with it. And that's enough to keep Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri at the top of my Civ list.

EDIT> In response to the TC's original question, I don't believe that any Civ game has ever been unapproachable for a first-timer. Use the Civipedia and lose your first game then you'll learn how to play.
#222Dhas_a_MIGRANEPosted 8/31/2013 11:00:24 AM
ElDudorino posted...
This topic shows a lot more love for Civ 5 than I'm used to seeing. Granted I've never played the expansions for Civ 5, which I hear are quite good, but I found the base game to be pretty bad and I went back to Civ 4 after a handful of games. In version 1.0 the enemy civilizations were extremely stupid and would surrender their entire empire to you after you killed a couple of their units. Then they patched the game to make enemies "less likely to surrender," so instead of surrendering IMMEDIATELY they would just charge their units at you uselessly until their army was whittled down to nothing and THEN surrender. What a joke.

They had a clever idea with the combat by eliminating the option of just stacking 50 of the same unit in a single tile and devastating everything in your way. Each tile only gets one unit and they can move in 6 directions, and ranged units have ACTUAL range so you can rank your archers behind your infantry and after upgrades you can even put a second row of archers behind that. This is also huge for exploiting your environment, for example if you line up archers across a river they can shoot over it. It does make moving units around a serious pain but it's a great idea. I think that giving cities their own defenses was a cool idea, too. The problem is that the enemy AI has no idea how to actually use any kind of strategy in their formations and they'll just charge their units idiotically into No Man's Land to be shot to pieces. It's ridiculous.

The whole Empire Happiness thing is also handled terribly, in my opinion. And City-States? A total mess. Some of them are WAY too overpowered and exploitable, and the others are free developed cities for your empire with only minimal diplomatic drawbacks to conquering them. Also, road upkeep is a bit much in Civ 5.

I liked their ambition in finally changing the formula significantly for Civ 5 as far as combat, but I think they just did a really bad job with it. And that's enough to keep Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri at the top of my Civ list.

EDIT> In response to the TC's original question, I don't believe that any Civ game has ever been unapproachable for a first-timer. Use the Civipedia and lose your first game then you'll learn how to play.


You really can't judge the game if you haven't played the expansions, and no one should really play Civ V at this point without at least Gods and Kings but really you should play with both
---
Pearl Code: 0731 1228 8254 White Code: 0862 2790 1982
SSBB: 0989-1461-9542
#23ElDudorinoPosted 8/31/2013 11:03:01 AM
Fair enough... I do plan to check out the expansion at some point since people say it really is THAT much better but I haven't gotten around to it. I just know the base game was a huge turn-off for me.
#242Dhas_a_MIGRANEPosted 8/31/2013 11:07:06 AM
ElDudorino posted...
Fair enough... I do plan to check out the expansion at some point since people say it really is THAT much better but I haven't gotten around to it. I just know the base game was a huge turn-off for me.


Actually you really only need the most recent one since it includes the updates from Gods and Kings but not the civs. Probably around Christmas you should be able to find it 50-75% off.
---
Pearl Code: 0731 1228 8254 White Code: 0862 2790 1982
SSBB: 0989-1461-9542
#25SinfullyvannilaPosted 8/31/2013 12:04:25 PM(edited)
ArsenicOverlord posted...
Ghennkins posted...
I can save you some money if you're thinking about getting Civ 5. Here's how fun and engaging it is to play:

Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn

Wow yay fun! Want to make a settler? Click Next Turn 30 times and do nothing inbetween yay!!

Game is rubbish. Poorly designed. But don't take my word for it. Experience it for yourself. :]


I take it the first thing you did with your capital city is to create a settler while your warrior sits garrisoned in the city. Let me be the first one to tell you: you're doing it wrong.


You should at least be building a granary before your first Settler.

Ideally, it should be something like Scout-Shrine-Monument/Worker-Granary-Warrior/Archer-Settler.

Food turns into production when you are building a Settler.
---
Also, Chess is a game of skill much like all gameplay only video games. So it is pretty mindless if you think about it.-mtjormitch
#26biohazard1775Posted 8/31/2013 2:41:44 PM
Ghennkins posted...
I can save you some money if you're thinking about getting Civ 5. Here's how fun and engaging it is to play:

Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn
Click Next Turn

Wow yay fun! Want to make a settler? Click Next Turn 30 times and do nothing inbetween yay!!

Game is rubbish. Poorly designed. But don't take my word for it. Experience it for yourself. :]




Don't play on Settler difficulty.
---
http://i.imgur.com/nrx65Pw.jpg
We should take away their metal boxes!